/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10601571
Natural carbon sinks absorb more than natural sources emit. Humans are the sole cause of the rapidly increasing CO2 concentration. This change in CO2 is the largest radiative forcing currently being observed, and is approximately equal to the amount of radiative forcing necessary to explain the current warming trend.

>>10601571
Probably not. Funny how these “scientists” always manipulate the data. If the data actually matches what you are saying, then why change it?

>>10601885
Can you give me a single example of climate scientists manipulating data without explaining why?

>>10601897
https://realclimatescience.com/2018/03/noaa-data-tampering-approaching-2-5-degrees/

>>10601905
If you actually read the primary literature that data is from, they explain why and how they adjust data. Here's a basic rundown:
https://skepticalscience.com/understanding-adjustments-to-temp-data.html

>>10601956
>he unironically believes them
They were caught and called out. There have been many whistleblowers about this very subject and there were even leaked emails describing it.

>>10601960
You can either read what a bunch of bloggers tell you and trust them, or you can take the time to actually understand the primary literature, and what's involved in the methodology and analysis which is explicitly laid out in the original sources.

The key to separating pseud shit and real science is reading the primary literature yourself and judging it by the methodology and analysis described there, and comparing it with other primary literature and responses.

>>10601990
do you trust them? I trust people less the more they have to gain from lying

>>10601990
>blogger
Tony Heller was raised in Los Alamos and has degrees in geology and EE. He does exactly what you mentioned. He even goes back years to get the old data to show past data is being manipulated.

>>10602045
I agree. If you were being given a huge paycheck just to fudge a few numbers wouldn’t you?

>>10602045
That's the thing, I don't trust them. That's why I read the sources myself, and read into their methodologies and analyses. I also checked background information and independent sources for comparison.

Now I don't need to take NASA's or any climate organization's word for it when I tell you the results are sound.

>>10601960
So can you give me a single example of climate scientists manipulating data without explaining why?

>>10601960
the last four years have consistently broken heat records and will do so again for a fifth year

>>10601897
>Where's the evidence?
>Gets evidence
>Claims evidence was tampered

If it's a question of not trusting the NOAA, sources do you Than trust? Otherwise, 25 cents has been added to your account.

>>10602058
>Tony Heller was raised in Los Alamos and has degrees in geology and EE. He does exactly what you mentioned. He even goes back years to get the old data to show past data is being manipulated.
He doesn't spend a single sentence analyzing why these adjustments are made. He simply assumes they are fraudulent because they exist. But that's not all, he cherrypicks the data to reach the conclusions he wants. Why is he only talking about US temperatures when the claim is about global warming? Because he knows that if he showed the global raw data vs. adjusted data it would show the exact opposite of what he needs for his conspiracy theory. Pic related. Why are climate scientists cooling the global trend if these adjustments are fraudulent? By Tony's "logic" this must mean that climatologists are trying to make global warming look less worse than it actually is. One can only conclude that Tony is either an utterly incompetent excuse for a "geologist" or a manipulative fraudster.

>>10601571
No, it's goblins.

>>10602136
do you think goblins were a metaphor for... you know...

>>10602058
Oh and I forgot to mention that Tony fails from the very beginning of the post by presenting the station mean as the mean annual temperature when temperature has to be averaged spatially, not averaged over stations. This makes his analysis pointless since he's not actually telling us how much the temperature has been adjusted.

He also ignores that homogenization of the data has been proven to work by comparison to high quality station data:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL067640

But these are minor issues when compared to Tony's extremely deceptive cherrypicking of the data.

>>10602130
I can tell you have never looked at his material seriously. He has analyzed both old and new temperature data and the methods used. If you want to believe organizations that were proven to tamper with data to fit expectations then fine.

>>10602143
Trumptards? Yes

>>10602171
Ah so youre one of the agents who is paid to post BLACKED threads on almost every board then huh?

>>10601571
humans are the sole reason for climate change, prove me wrong

I am torn on how real the concept is and how devastating the impact may be. Here are some criticisms I have about climate change
>neo-religiosity
The entire concept is cloaked in a fire and brimstone and end-time mentality which we can see in most religions. It can be seen as a substitute for religion. Also, the foremost activists also hold a religious devotion to the concept, calling any criticism of the notion blasphemous while they usually have no background in science.
I can also find similarities between Original sin and global warming.
>propaganda
So you have seen the video of the starving polar bear?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JhaVNJb3ag
This is, of course, an emotionally charged video and the immediate conclusion we are to jump to is that the cause of his suffering is global warming. We are not allowed to ask if there is some other reason like if it has an infection.
Also, since 5th grade(2006), in almost every class I had global warming would be brought up.
>scientific approach
So the theory sounds neat but collecting data to prove the theory is harder. Prooving a correlation between an increase in CO2 with the increase in temperature we have seen is hard, and the data is often dodgy, has often been proven wrong or even been manipulated with. The same goes for their positive feedback models and amplification theories.
Now If I were to bring this up to one of the ideologists of the theory, they would appeal to authority(i.e. climate researchers), here again, you can see the religious aspects of the theory, they treat these scientists as some high priests with answers to everything. But let's be honest, do you think that any person who came with an opposing viewpoint would ever get employed by an institute of research?
They also have the idea that everything bad that has happened(e.g. a drought, starving polar bear) is caused by climate change while it could be anything else.

>>10602164
Wow so you are not going to address a single point I made and continue to live in fantasy land? I can tell you are just going to ignore any substantive argument and post the same shit over and over. Fuck off retard. Tony is a proven fraud and you know it.

>>10602213
Man it’s almost as if we actually don’t know if humans have affected the climate significantly and that according to the data we likely haven’t.

>>10602172
No, ironically that's mostly Trumptards and other racists fetishizing the thing they hate

>>10602226
>he doesn’t have the self awareness to realize that it doesn’t matter what I say and that his position on this is very stiff
It’s ok anon I understand.

>>10602233
Funny you say that because interracial pornography tends to be very popular in liberal states

>>10602213
cont.
>political approach
So how have our dear politicians dealt with the situation?
- They have funded retarded projects that have been inefficient disasters and made the day-to-day more difficult while wasting taxpayer money(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlTA3rnpgzU).).
- Tried to force the nation to go green, ignoring the fact that a modern industrialised nation needs more than sun and wind to run.
- Implemented retarded taxations and regulations, which are hurting the middle class and forcing business overseas.
- not improve the infrastructure like funding more public transportation. Clogging the system, while the prices for tickets increases.
- increased immigration, because they told us not to breed which has resulted in labor shortages. This, of course, will move people from a poor country with low CO2 emissions to one where they will have a higher rate of emission.
- gotten even more bureaucracy by creating new branches green branches in government.
- not punishing countries who are responsible for 90% of CO2 emissions like China with tariffs, in fact, they have done the opposite.

In short, they have used the situation as an excuse to help their political donors(corporations), removed our liberties and expanded bureaucracy.

>>10602164
>if you don't think this guy's methodology is good, you must not have read it
>you need to trust him over other sources, because he says the other sources are lying
the credibility argument is as circular as your family tree.

>>10602213
>neo-religiosity
Creationists also say evolution is a religion. Flat earthers also say round earth is a religion. Anti-vaxxers also say vaccines are a religion.

>inb4 indignation at being compared to creationists, flat earthers, and anti-vaxxers while ignoring that this is the exact same thing he did when he compared AGW to a religion

>propaganda
So please tell me, is sea ice increasing? Are polar bears not endangered by decreasing sea ice which lowers their ability to hunt for seals? Of course seniors would never use propaganda, like using a video of a polar bear to spread doubt about climate change...

>Prooving a correlation between an increase in CO2 with the increase in temperature we have seen is hard
There is no need to prove a correlation since we already know causation. The greenhouse effect is fundamental thermodynamics and chemistry, and is directly observed with radiative spectroscopy. You are woefully misinformed about the basic science, and you are projecting that ignorance onto climatologists. You have no idea what you're talking about. Just stop posting.

>>10602240
Not as popular as in the South

>>10602263

>>10602264
Ok smart guy so how about you go look at the wavelength absorption spectrum for CO2 and H2O and then get back to me, since apparently you know a thing or two about atomic spectroscopy.

>>10602236
Thanks for admitting AGW is real.

>>10602265
The majority of the US black population lives in the south brainlet.

>>10602279
>he thinks I’m admitting he’s right

>>10602268
so that's how you respond when something hits a little too close to home.
>>10602130 >>10602158 raise specific, detailed, substantive issues with Heller's claims...and your response is literally to dismiss them by saying the other anon must not have actually read what Heller wrote.
and again, you're claiming that NOAA etc. can't be trusted to report the data because they've tampered with it, and your evidence that they've tampered with it is that Heller says so, and your reasoning for trusting Heller over NOAA is that you think the latter tampers with the data.

wanna debate with the big lads? try reading Hausfather et al. and see if you can understand it.

>>10602276
Already have, let me guess...

>hurr water vape is a better geocaching gas therefore CO2 is irrelevant
Water vapor is not a radiative forcing since its concentration is determined by temperature. You could argue 99.999% of the warming is caused by water vapor concentration and you'd still have to explain what caused the temperature to go up initially top cause all this. Are we done here, you pathetically predictable moron?

>>10602276
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html

Yawn

>>10602294
>he doesn’t realize what his straw man was
Whew anon, you think you can hang with the big cucks but you can’t figure that out?

>>10602290
You did, when you utterly failed to respond to the argument. You're just making a fool of yourself. You should hurry and leave the thread so that your conspiracy-addled mind can preserve the delusion that your position makes sense, until the next thread when you inevitably get BTFO again.

>>10602276
atmospheric scientists:
>not only can we measure how much infrared radiation is absorbed and reemitted by CO2, we can directly measure the change in optical thickness of the earth's atmosphere (to terrestrial radiation) due to increases in pCO2
deniers:
>BUT THOSE PEAKS ARE SKINNY, HOW CAN CO2 POSSIBLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE???

>>10602301
>you did

>>10602303
Yup you did. If you ignore the argument right in front of you then you forfeit the right to keep spouting your gibberish. Thanks for admitting that AGW is real.

>>10602299
>uh oh, don't actually have a comeback
>maybe if I keep saying he was using a strawman argument he'll go away
if you're so certain, tell us all what the strawman was, bitch boy.

>>10602295
You mentioned atomic spectroscopy so I brought up water vapor. Not to explain a “trend” in global warming but because water vapor plays a far more important role in moderating the Earth’s temperature than CO2. This is even scientific consensus, since that matters a lot to someone like you.

>>10601571
Correlation =/= causation. This process has gone on for billions of years, looking at a mere thousands gives and inaccurate picture. Besides, there seems to be a billion and 1 ways the world is ending right now with everything from antibiotics resitence to overpopulation proclaiming to be the doom of humanity. I say we just wait from shit to somehow hit the fan and see who survives. I'm at least getting myself a self-sustaining farm before I turn 30.

>>10602264
>Flat earthers also say round earth is a religion. Anti-vaxxers also say vaccines are a religion.
no they don't you faggot

>Are polar bears not endangered by decreasing sea ice which lowers their ability to hunt for seals?
apparently their population has been increasing for the last few decades

>>10602265
hawaii in an abusive relationship

>>10602315
>water vapor plays a far more important role in moderating the Earth’s temperature than CO2.
Did you read the post you're replying to? Maybe you have amnesia like in Momento, or maybe you're just illiterate, but I responded to that exact argument in the same post. Because you're a predictable little retard whose canned talking points have been debunked for decades. Please explain to me why you ignored what I wrote and carried on with an already refuted point. Or just fuck off and die already.

>>10602315
See
>>10602297

This is basic shit

>>10602320
>no they don't you faggot
New to /sci/? Time to go back to your home board.

>apparently their population has been increasing for the last few decades
Their numbers were not known for the last few decades, so that's an interesting lie.

>>10602309
>if you don't think this guy's methodology is good, you must not have read it
I never said this. Why do you accuse me of this anon? I read Hausfather’s abstract. It pertains to data in the past couple of decades showing a general warming trend. What does that have to do with the claim that the Earth has warmed significantly in the last 140 years or so?

>>10602333
Who are you arguing with? I don’t even get what you are trying to say. The point was that although CO2 can contribute to warming temperatures the water vapor plays a much more significant role. There are also many other variables at play in the Earth’s climate, and a simple greenhouse gas model is not sufficient to predict reality.

>>10602320
>apparently their population has been increasing for the last few decades
a commonly pushed myth, in fact. there are two things going on:

1. censuses of total polar bear population were incredibly unreliable back in the 1960s, when most of the early counts were made. the usual Russian figures were in the ballpark of 5,000-10,000, which significantly undercounted the actual population. using those inaccurate counts as the starting point makes the decrease seem like an increase.

2. the most closely studied subpopulations have been recovering due to less hunting. not all polar bear populations are covered equally; it's a question of which areas scientists can access (i.e. the ones near civilization, and hence the ones that have historically been most severely hunted). if you just look at places like Svalbard, where polar bears used to be hunted quite a lot but are no longer, the local population has increased despite the habitat loss due to much lower predation pressure. ignoring the larger, less-surveyed populations further north and focusing only on the subpopulations that have been actively protected can produce an illusory increase.

https://polarbearsinternational.org/research/research-qa/are-polar-bear-populations-increasing-in-fact-booming/

>>10602338
>I can tell you have never looked at his material seriously.
Exactly what you said.
That anon raised informed and specific issues with Heller's work and you accuse them of "not looking at his material seriously."

>>10602336
>It’s true that water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse effect

This is the first sentence of the article. That is exactly what I said above. Are you literally mentally retarded?

Better question, do we have enough data to say that our lives will be significantly worse if climate changes the way research shows?

>>10602355
Holy shit you're retarded, you read the first sentence and thought it supports what you believe. Look again.

>>10602352
>I can tell you have never looked at his material seriously
He hasn’t. His own bias prevented him from doing so, but I didn’t say he never read it. This vs

>If you don’t think this guys methodology is good, you must not have read it

How are those two the same agiain?

>if you don't think this guy's methodology is good, you must not have read it
>>10602338
>I never said this.
(responding to >>10602130 criticizing Heller's methods)
>>10602164
>I can tell you have never looked at his material seriously.

your own words, chucklefuck.

>>10602363
>I didn't say he didn't read it, I just said he didn't actually pay attention to it.
this is just about the most pathetic attempt at spin/damage control I have ever seen on this godforsaken website. this is, like, toddler-tier explaining.
>I didn't kick him, I nudged him with my foot!

>>10602358
I skimmed the whole article. I understand what it was saying. And yes, H2O levels in our atmosphere are partially dependent on temperature. What the fuck is your point?

Why are people citing Tony Heller? Potholer dealt with him months ago.

>>10602337
flat earthers say round earth is a NASA/government conspiracy and anti-vaxxers say vaccines cause autism, anyone who's used religion as an argument was probably trolling, but you, a redditor, can't tell the difference

>>10602286
>Georgia: 31% black 60% white
>Mississippi: 37% black 59% white
>Louisiana: 32% black 63% white
>"It's the blacks!"
Hmmm...

>>10602368
>responding to a straw man with another straw man
Whew lad, just when I thought it couldn’t get any worse. Interpreting information through a bias is not the same as not paying attention. How much of a fool are you? Cognitive dissonance to the fucking max

>>10602377
Are you not from the United States? Ebony porn is not even the same thing as interracial. The fuck?

>>10602343
>I don’t even get what you are trying to say.
That's exactly my point. Anyone with basic knowledge in climatology would understand what I'm saying.

>The point was that although CO2 can contribute to warming temperatures the water vapor plays a much more significant role.
Yes, which I already addressed. Even if water vapor was 10000 times more effective a greenhouse gas than CO2, you would still need to explain what changed the concentration of water vapor. Water vapor concentration is purely a function of temperature. You need to explain what caused the temperature to change which then caused water vapor to increase. This is why the effect of water vapor is part of climate sensitivity and not a radiative forcing. If you don't understand this then it's time to go back to school instead of playing with the adults, kiddo.

>There are also many other variables at play in the Earth’s climate, and a simple greenhouse gas model is not sufficient to predict reality.
Not only do you have to show that climatologists have somehow missed a bigger radiative forcing than CO2, you also have to explain how our direct observation of CO2's radiative forcing is wrong, since this radiative forcing matches that required to produce the observed warming. Good luck! Until that happens you'll just have to accept the current theory, which has been very successful so far.

>>10602370
>Ok smart guy so how about you go look at the wavelength absorption spectrum for CO2 and H2O and then get back to me, since apparently you know a thing or two about atomic spectroscopy.
My point is that your snarky remark about water vapor actually presents no real evidence against AGW. This is basic shit that climatologists understand and account for. Water vapor is part of a feedback mechanism that enhances warming, but it's not itself a driver of warming. That's what the article outlines, and I can provide more sources if you want them.

>>10602370
>And yes, H2O levels in our atmosphere are partially dependent on temperature.
Aww look guys, the little retard is capable of learning. He's still getting it wrong, but he'll get there eventually.

Hint: not partially dependent on temperature, wholly dependent on temperature

>>10602402
>wholly dependent
You must be trolling right?

>>10602376
>flat earthers say round earth is a NASA/government conspiracy
And deniers say the same thing about global warming. So I guess that means by your logic they can't also say global warming is a religion and that post was just a figment of my imagination. Glad we cleared that up.

>>10602380
>Everything I Don't Like is a Strawman: The Post

>Interpreting information through a bias
not what you actually accused the other anon of doing, and what literally EVERYBODY inherently does.

meanwhile, you've been so busy pissing your pants that you STILL haven't even attempted to address any of the (again) specific, detailed, substantive issues raised >>10602130
>>10602158
Why does Heller not support his implicit claim that the adjustments are fraudulent?
Why does Heller only look at adjustments made to US temps rather than global temps?
Why does Heller just average the stations instead of weighting them geographically?
Why does Heller not address the work of Hausfather and others showing that homogenization removes (rather than creates) bias?

until you can answer those questions instead of dismissing them, you stay at the kids' table.

>>10602406
You must be retarded right? The amount of water vapor the atmosphere can hold is determined completely by its temperature.

>>10602406
The amount of water vapor the atmosphere can hold is strictly limited by the temperature (and pressure) of the atmosphere. The rest condenses out. It's basic chemistry.

>>10602417
Heller has supported his claims the data is fraudulent many times. He doesn’t just look at US data he looks at global data as well. He also does not just average the stations and his analysis usually goes deeper than just mean temperatures anyway. And I already mentioned how Hausfather’s work is not in contradiction to Heller’s viewpoint. Assuming you have looked into Heller you should already know these things. You have looked into Heller like you said, right anon?

>>10602435
in fairness, it's also a function of pressure, but he doesn't know that. (and also pressure stays near enough to constant that it's not a noticeable effect.)

>>10602435
>>10602438
The amount of water the atmosphere is capable of holding is determined by temperature. But the actual amount in the atmosphere depends on other environmental factors as well.

>>10602442
>Heller has supported his claims the data is fraudulent many times.
What does "support" mean? All he does is show a difference in the data and then assume it's fraudulent without ever spending a single iota of thought on why that apartment was made. Except he can't even do that correctly since he doesn't understand the data he's trying to present, like when he thought the station average = mean annual temperature.

Please show me a single example of climatologists manipulating the data without explaining why. You can't because Tony never tells you!

>>10602444
>function of the partial pressure of H2O
Ftfy

>>10602444
Pressure is a function of temperature and altitude. Altitude at a particular place doesn't change, but temperature does. Temperature as we already know determines water vapor concentration.

>>10602455
Wrong, function of the total pressure.

>>10602454
https://www.insidescience.org/news/retired-noaa-scientist-doubles-down-climate-data-controversy

>>10602448
The actual amount in the atmosphere is determined by how much water vapor is evaporated from the oceans, which... you guessed it... is determined by temperature.

>>10602470
It’s literally Henry’s Law

>>10602472
“However, conversations with numerous climate scientists and Bates himself have revealed a more tangled picture of the disagreement. Bates told Inside Science that he believes in human-caused climate change, yet he said he stands by the content of the Daily Mail article.

Independent scientists and the accused researchers contest Bates' allegations, and in some cases appear to find them incomprehensible. Their comments raise questions about how, if at all, a dispute over one paper should influence the overall understanding of what humans are doing to the climate.”

“Other scientists were quick to refute Bates' claims and defend the "Karl study," which is named for its lead author, Thomas Karl, the former director of NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information. On blog posts and social media, researchers praised the Karl study's scientific rigor and pointed out that its findings have been replicated in other studies by independent researchers.”

Why did you cite this? Are you fucking stupid?

>>10602477
Henry's Law is about dissolved gas in a liquid, lol. I'm talking about the max water vapor capacity of the atmosphere, which is a function of temperature and total pressure.

>>10602472
“Even if the details of Bates' complaints were true, they wouldn't support his more inflammatory accusations, according to Karl. For example, Bates claimed that Karl constantly had his "thumb on the scale" in an effort to increase the apparent rate of warming in recent years. But his specific accusations mostly deal with whether the researchers followed data processing and archiving procedures that Bates helped develop. These procedures wouldn't have changed the findings of the study at all, according to Karl. Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist at Berkeley Earth in California, agrees.”

>>10602482
>wants evidence of scientific fraud
>gets it
>”why did u cite this?”

>>10602442
just straight-up lying now, are we?
remember, we're talking about
>https://realclimatescience.com/2018/03/noaa-data-tampering-approaching-2-5-degrees/

>his claims the data is fraudulent
not what the other anon nor I said. the ADJUSTMENTS to the data, dickhead.
and nowhere in the blog post does he say WHY the adjustments aren't justified.
>He doesn’t just look at US data he looks at global data as well
nowhere in the post does he discuss anything other than US data. and like the other anon said, the same adjustments that increase the US warming trend DECREASE the global warming trend. if they're faking the data to make it look like the Earth is warming when it's not, why would they make it look like the Earth is warming less than it is?
>He also does not just average the stations
literally the first figure on that post proves you wrong
>Hausfather’s work is not in contradiction to Heller’s viewpoint
Hausfather's work shows that homogenization (a large part of the "adjustments" in Heller's writing) removes warming bias. Heller says that all the adjustments add warming bias.

this is what happens when deniers try to argue.

>>10602472
Total nothingburger, aka a denier feast

https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/02/08/noaa-scientists-climate-change-data/

>>10602490
>wants evidence of scientific fraud
>gets it

No, you provided a citation that states numerous times that Bates’ claims wouldn’t constitute fraud even if they were true, and even if the study was performed as he’d have liked, the results wouldn’t change. Are you stupid, or are you lying on purpose?

>>10601571
yes anon, you can see it with your own eyes.

>>10602455
>the partial pressure of H2O is a function of the partial pressure of H2O
like >>10602470 said, it is indeed a function of the total pressure. that's why water boils if you expose it to vacuum at constant temperature.

>>10602415
actually I said that if anyone had said that that they were probably trolling, which almost everyone in flat earth threads are. maybe you would've understood if you read my whole post before replying and/or had a triple digit IQ

>>10602503
>>10602506
>>10602507

I have to say it’s really funny watching how people go through different levels of cognitive dissonance when their view on something is challenged.

>>10602490
“Karl and his colleagues are equally perplexed by Bates' explanations of exactly what they did wrong. Much of Bates' concern seems to be whether the researchers used a data archiving process called Climate Data Records, which Bates helped develop. According to Karl, this process was meant to be the "gold standard" for managing operational datasets -- huge troves of data that are continually updated with new measurements from satellites, land stations, ocean buoys and other sources. The full CDR process is costly and time-consuming, and involves having engineers rewrite the software that turns measurements into useful metrics like monthly temperature averages, said Karl. But in theory, this effort pays off with more reliable databases that are easy for a wide range of people to use

In practice, scientists have mixed views on whether the CDR standard and similar processes are worth the trouble. Karl said he was enthusiastic about it at first, even convincing Congress to allocate money for it. But the money soon ran out, and it has proven harder than expected to update the databases when scientists develop better ways to calculate climate metrics from raw measurements.”

This is fraud to climate change deniers.

>>10602518
I have to say it’s really funny watching people shift to nothing but ad hominem red herrings when their ‘evidence” is dismantled.

>>10602383
It is the fetishazation of black people. Same thing

>>10602518
>these people explaining to me why I'm wrong must be suffering from cognitive dissonance!

>>10602525
Anon, you're being trolled, I think it would be best if you stopped posting for a while.

>>10602511
>actually I said that if anyone had said that that they were probably trolling
Anyone who thinks they're trolling is either having their first day on this board or is trolling. Now fuck off, I've had enough of your tedious bullshit.

>>10602532
>Being Wrong is trolling

Possible. I will take this advice into consideration.

>>10602518
>incapable of defending any argument
>yet still maintains that he's right
>accuses others of cognitive dissonance
Can someone help me count the levels of hypocrisy on display here?

>>10602545
Unless that anon either truly has a sub room-temperature iq, or is an oil shill, it has to be trolling.

>>10602535
>u new xd
you sure like that accusation, I think you're probably projecting as you're clearly from reddit. I'd say lurk for another year before posting, but really we don't need people like you here so maybe just head on back

>>10602554
So Trump voters are just trolling?

I hate to break it to you kiddo, but most people are only a step above braindead.

>>10602555
Never posted on reddit, you're cnewfag if you don't recognize a /pol/tard when you see one, fuck off.

>>10602574
why? I can do this all day. my shitposting powers are far greater than yours, since I've been here longer than a month.
"recognize a /pol/tard" probably means anyone saying right wing opinions or hate speech / microaggressions right? see it's not that hard

>>10602317
Can you not read the infographic you goddamn retard?

>>10602448
>other environmental factors
Lmao like fucking what?

>>10602143
Far right extremists, they hate all species except their own. While the cast of the manga is about a diverse cast of characters from all races and backgrounds coming together to stop the racist violent goblins who want to purge the earth of all non goblins and create a goblin ethnostate.

>>10602245
The U.S emits double CO2 per capita than china.

>>10602045
that's a fallacy, actually.
This is /sci/. You're supposed to judge the facts based on the scientific evidence here, rather than based on who said them.

>>10602898
but china has a buttload of capitas

>>10602898
>per capita emissions in country with 1/5 the population is higher
o no what ever will we do

>>10602901
It is a logical fallacy but he is not making a formal argument. He is using something called wisdom, which seems to be lacking heavily on this board.

>>10602912
>>10602913
Not to mention most of China's emissions are directly caused by American companies.

People are still posting stuff by Tony Heller?
He can't even get the most basic science right why would anyone cite this idiot?
>https://youtu.be/WLjkLPnIPPw
>https://youtu.be/weQ-N4iymrQ
>https://youtu.be/V5fncpSikwk

>>10602918
ya because they can't pull that shit in the civilized world, don't blame the world for china selling out it's people

>>10602936
>American companies building American products for American consumers
>yeah 100% china's fault
You might as well blame Africans for the slave trade.

>>10602941
banning people from creating a business outside their home country is totalitarian

>>10602948
Honestly crony capitalist shills in the Democratic and Republican party sold out our country in the 80s. Allowing our industry to be exported to China without a fight was pure treason.

>>10602240
I'm a white nationalist and while I can appreciate a nice big black cock, I just can't stand what they're attached to.

>>10602957
>I’m a white nationalist

You just admitted membership in a terrorist ideology.

>>10602948
You don’t know what totalitarianism is.

>>10601571
Yes

>>10602957
It’s okay pajeet, I know you’re just pissed cuz your women love BWC but you don’t have to take it out on other people online

>>10601571
>Posts meaningless data
Hotter temperatures lead the release of CO2 - NOT the other way around.

>>10602954
Who cares, free market. Ever heard of comparative advantage?

>>10603180
Free market is a Jewish lie, sending skilled manufacturing jobs to china so they could pay them slave wages is the reason for massive wage stagnation and the death of blue collar wages. All so investors and bankers and foreign nationals could profit at the expense of the hardworking American people.

>>10603180

Politicians are elected by the people and should represent their interests. This was not in the best interests of the average American. That's why we care.

>>10603378
Money is speech goy, exxon mobile is a person and legally has the right to (((((donate)))) to the candidate they choose.

>>10603175
Please post your disproof of basic thermodynamics and chemistry so that you can collect your Nobel prize.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

>>10603175
both have been observed, and either can drive the other. that's how positive feedback loops work.

>>10603175
You are partially correct, higher temperatures reduce the solubility of CO2 in the Ocean and methane trapped in permafrost. Unfortunately for your little hypothesis the greenhouse effect exists. So increasing greenhouse gasses increases temperature AND greenhouse gasses in a positive feedback loop.

>>10602898
lol. Doesn't matter, it is the amount dumbass.

>>10601885
Its called adjusting the data. And they adjust it because they dont always get it right at first. Take a look at the UAH sattelite. It got its data wrong and scientists had to adjusted it. Because outside factors caused the data to be way off. But you faggots keep bringing up the UAH sattelite has evidence.

>>10602058

>Tony Heller

I have spoken with him about GW. Infact i just had a talk on twitter with him yesterday.

The guy doesn't even provide sources in his videos or twitter discussions. Misinterprets graphs. Potholer54 debunked him 3 times already with peer reviewed sources all in the description.

So the fact that you think he is actually a good go to guy to understanding the GW issue is sad.

He also blocks people who prove him wrong time and time again and his fellow deniers have distance themselfs from him because he denies basic shit.

>>10602130
Hey anon. Im sending this straight to Tony and see what he thinks about this.

I know he lies about GW and you have a point. He is a nice old man but bottom line is.. he just lies.

>>10603909
I've conversed with Tony directly in the past. He just stops responding and goes on repeating the same debunked points. Arguing with such delusional people is a complete waste of time.

>>10602384
I never seen a climate denier getting owned so hard like that in a long time. Well done anon.

>>10603929
Oh. We might have crossed paths on twitter idk. Im always debating these retards on twitter. Tony actually replied to the screenshot of your points.

>>10603955
Let's see the response.

>>10603968
He just completely ignored your points. Didn't even adress your last point which was spot on. He is pathetic.

He is not the main real problem tho. The real problems are the faggot StevenCrowder and the onions boy Ben Shapiro.

>>10603997
Why did "S O Y B O Y" turned into onions boy? Wtf? Kek

>>10603955
>>10603997
>I have hundreds of blog posts detailing the tampering

Well what are you guys afraid of? If the data is all good and AGW is real then why not take a bit of time and check out his blog? Are you scared you will find something that contradicts what you are saying?

>>10604048
I have been debating him for months. I have checked his shit until i got blocked by him with the other account i had. Then i checked out his videos and found no peer reviewed papers for his claims in the description. Then i watched potholer54's videos explaining to him the science. Peer reviewed papers everywhere in the discription and he made Tony Heller admit he was wrong in a lot of things.
Deniers dont even like Tony because he denies basic shit. He denies that the Arctic is receading for example and he gives long explanations as to why. But people who have more than 2 braincells can see that he is cherry picking and leaving out Greenland aside and the total net loss because it doesn't fit his narrative. His blogs is almost all cherry picked data. You are a blind idiot for taking blogs over agencie panels with raw data all across the world.

>>10604048
I have been debating him for months. I have checked his shit until i got blocked by him with the other account i had. Then i checked out his videos and found no peer reviewed papers for his claims in the description. Then i watched potholer54's videos explaining to him the science. Peer reviewed papers everywhere in the discription and he made Tony Heller admit he was wrong in a lot of things.
Deniers dont even like Tony because he denies basic shit. He literally takes graphs that prove his point from google images or other blogs and then gets shown wrong when people give him the actual peer reviewed paper of where that graph came from. His blogs is almost all cherry picked data. You are a blind idiot for taking blogs over agency panels with raw data all across the world.

>>10604073
>totally deflecting my question

Also the fact you have been blocked multiple times by him tells me your just being an asshole. Maybe check out his blog like I mentioned above? As I said, if you are right why act so afraid to look at his posts?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7mGSVsl-ing

>>10604005
you hit the so[math][/math]yboy filter

>>10604078
Sure, as soon as you respond to
>>10602130
>>10602158
and explain why anyone should pay any attention to this liar.

>>10604078

>you were just being an asshole

No, i was challenging his claims and he didn't like that so he blocked me along with many other people.

I have already told you i have checked it out when he links me that shit to back up his claims on twitter. Dont u see the irony? You are telling me to go check out a fucking blog but you cant even check raw data on peer reviewed papers. That just goes to show how much of a brainlet you are. Mentioned Potholer54 too i bet you didn't even checked it as well. Because you are a close minded moron.

>>10604097
Why would I respond to that asshole? I’m not the same anon. Go check out his blog. Also pic related. Potholer getting eternally BTFOd by Tony. Why doesn’t that pussy go do a debate live?

>>10602377
That's like double the national average, dummy.

>>10604103
Why would I look at a proven liar's blog?

>>10604251
>yeah so AGW is totally real but I am too scared to look at this guy’s blog because there might be something that contradicts my viewpoint

Literally confirmation bias in action. I love how Tony called out that fucker Potsmoker and he pussied out.

>>10602058
Randy Marsh was a geologist.

>>10604103
A live debate is fine for a publicity stunt, but not great for actually supporting your arguments with evidence. If you're debating live, you can't really cite sources to back up your claims and it just turns into two guys saying "no, I'M right" back and forth.
Which is what deniers want, of course. No evidence, no actual expertise, just blustering.

>>10602265
I've seen variations of this that puts Ebony as the most searched term. I don't fucking buy it anymore. This shit's faked to fit the agena -- agenda of the week: faggots.

>>10604103
Tony's afraid of fact checking after getting BTFO by potdaddy 3 videos in a row. He knows he can't win an actual argument so he's hoping in a live debate he can just spew bullshit for an hour straight.

>>10604078
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLjkLPnIPPw
>https://youtu.be/weQ-N4iymrQ
>https://youtu.be/V5fncpSikwk

why don't you watch these videos of Heller being DESTROYED by FACTS and LOGIC!!!!!
You aren't scared of seeing something that disproves your religion are you?

>>10604535
Lol jokes on you nigger I already watched those

>>10604542
And you have any faith left in that fool? Why would you trust someone who can't read a paper without cherry picking?

>>10604547
It’s a clown world nigger. Get used to it

>>10604592
Well Tony is definitely a clown so I guess that makes sense.

>>10604605
>he unironically believes globalist controlled agencies

>>10604608
>SCIENCE IS CREATED BY JEW LIZARD MAN SATANIST ALIENS ONLY JESUS CAN SAVE US WE MUST HAVE FAITH
here we go boys it was a fun ride

>>10604649
>not knowing that science was literally created and extensively used by Christians

>>10604653
Really backfired on them they should have nipped it in the bud while people still listened to them.

Global warming is made up. Only faggots and insane people think rising water levels is going to BTFO humanity.

>>10604261
I already did look at his blog, and I found it to contain incompetent and dishonest arguments. You can either defend him or stop these idiotic demands that I read more of his drivel. And it's not that he contradicts my viewpoint, it's that he contradicts reality and honesty. He also lied about Potholer agreeing to a live debate. Potholer agreed to a video debate since a live debate does not allow fact checking and providing sources. Tony is the one who pussies out of doing so by making the excuse that he doesn't have enough time and that Potholer keeps making longer and longer video responses. But this is yet another lie as Potholer's responses got shorter, not longer, and Tony has released many more videos than Potholer did in the same amount of time. But I'm sure you're going to ignore all these lies and demand yet again that attention be paid to a retarded blogger who isn't even trusted by his fellow deniers. Why?

>>10604983
Nice blogpost

Climate change wouldn't be this big an issue if China wasn't invited into the WTO

>>10602164
>>10602236
>>10602290
>>10602303

I love how the most substantial parts of science-denierbros posts are the provocative reaction memes

>>10602914
Just wanted to let you know I literally laughed at the irony of this comment

>>10606680
I think they are just /pol/ fucktards that come here to troll. I have seen threads where some said they do that often.

Shit troll tho they only make themselfs look like complete retards.

>>10602264
The so-called greenhouse effect doesn't exist. It has been debunked long time ago.

>>10607154
The greenhouse effect is based on fundamental thermodynamics and chemistry, and it's directly observed via radiative spectroscopy. Anyone who showed it not to exist would win a Nobel Prize. Who did it?