/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10604257]

Why did NASA and NOAA alter the old temperature data? And if it was done on purpose for some good reason then why try to hide the fact?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6kUAtt2pXlc

[Anonymous No.10604346]

>>10604257
>sauce: youtube
dropped

[Anonymous No.10604564]

>>10604257
>https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL067640
Here you go, let me know your thoughts.

[Anonymous No.10604567]

>>10604564
>During the period of overlap between the USHCN and USCRN networks, we can confidently conclude that the adjustments to the USHCN station records made them more similar to proximate homogenous USCRN station records, both in terms of trends and anomalies. There are no systematic trend biases introduced by adjustments during this period; if anything adjusted USHCN stations still underestimate maximum (and mean) temperature trends relative to USCRN stations. This residual maximum temperature bias warrants additional research to determine the exact cause.

>While this analysis can only directly examine the period of overlap, the effectiveness of adjustments during this period is at least suggestive that the PHA will perform well in periods prior to the introduction of the USCRN, though this conclusion is somewhat tempered by the potential changing nature of inhomogeneities over time. This work provides an important empirical test of the effectiveness of temperature adjustments similar to Vose et al. [2012] and lends support prior work by Williams et al. [2012] and Venema et al. [2012] that used synthetic data sets to find that NOAA's pairwise homogenization algorithm is effectively removing localized inhomogeneities in the temperature record without introducing detectable spurious trend biases.

[Anonymous No.10604585]

>>10604564
Literally everything in this paper is addressed in the link I provided. Did you not watch the fucking video?

[Anonymous No.10604636]

>>10604585
I read the fucking blog post. He fails to address any of these
>Time of observation changes introduced a large cooling bias due to widespread observation time changes from afternoon to morning between 1950 and present. This results in a shift from minimum‐maximum thermometers occasional double‐counting of maximums to a double‐counting of minimums, with a net U.S. average negative bias of about 0.25°C [Vose et al., 2003]. The widespread transition from LiG to MMTS instruments between 1980 and 2000 also resulted in a cooling bias; MMTS instruments tend to measure maximum temperatures about 0.5°C lower and minimum temperatures about 0.35°C higher than LiG instruments, resulting in a net negative trend bias of around 0.15°C [Hubbard and Lin, 2006].

> Despite these selection criteria, significant systemic inhomogeneities plague the USHCN. These include time of observation changes [Karl et al., 1986; Vose et al., 2003], instrument changes [Quayle et al., 1991; Doesken, 2005; Hubbard and Lin, 2006], station location changes [Changnon and Kunkel, 2006], changes in broader urban form surrounding station locations [Karl et al., 1988; Peterson and Owen, 2005; Hausfather et al., 2013], and changes in localized station site characteristics [Fall et al., 2011; Menne et al., 2010; Muller et al., 2013]. Most stations in the USHCN have been subject to three or more of these inhomogeneities during the past century, and few if any have completely homogenous records [Menne et al., 2009]. These inhomogeneities can have large nonsymmetric effects on estimates of U.S. temperature trends. The two largest trend effects are due to correcting time of observation changes and instrument changes from liquid‐in‐glass (LiG) to minimum‐maximum temperature systems (MMTSs).

He mentions two of these. Change in lattitude, and TOBS his fucking retarded solution is to just throw away the data from any station which suffers from these instead of correcting for

[Anonymous No.10604646]

>>10604636
these errors his fucking retarded solution is to just throw away all data that suffers from these errors.
And he completely glosses over what's cited as the largest change which is instrument change, then makes a shitty composite graph with cherrypicked data.

[Anonymous No.10604662]

>>10604257

Don't you worry about that, we will tell you what to think and when to think it.

[Anonymous No.10604665]

>>10604636
>>10604646
>read the blogpost but too lazy to watch a brief video

If you watched the video you would know none of the data is cherry picked. He literally uses the data directly from NOAA and NASA and shows how the past data has been “adjusted” and then shows why the adjustments are bullshit.

[Anonymous No.10604668]

>>10604662

[Anonymous No.10604674]

>>10604665
I read the blogpost because he said it's the same thing just with links to his sources.
And what's your explanation for him ignoring the effects of instrument change? Which is cited to be the second largest source of errors, as well as urban form surrounding station locations and changes in localized station site characteristics?

[Anonymous No.10604675]

>>10604674
What the fuck? He specifically mentions instrument change in the video fuck face

[Anonymous No.10604713]

>>10604675
Yeah this retard cited resetting your thermometer in the morning as some kind of silver bullet that could completely negate all instrumentation changes. contrary to all evidence.
>https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL027069

[Anonymous No.10604743]

>>10604646
>cherrypicked data
You mean the entire 20th century NASA/NOAA temperature record?

[Anonymous No.10604745]

*BTFO's your entire field*

nothing personnel, kiddos

[Anonymous No.10604749]

You can tell the alarmists are fucking nuts and religious wackos because they do shit like make websites like this whenever anybody takes a critical opinion https://tonyhellerakastevengoddard.com/who-is-tony-heller/ Just look at that website and ask yourself if the person who made it appears sane.

[Anonymous No.10604774]

>>10604713
Fucking hell anon. No that is not what he said. Since you are too much of a retard I will spell it out for you. NOAA and NASA, which is the direct source of his data, claims that due to a data collection problem in the 20th century they are justified in altering the data. They also claim changing latitude as a justification. In the video Tony shows why this is bullshit and how the actual data shows a slight cooling trend over the 20th century.

[Anonymous No.10604779]

>>10604743
Yeah isn’t it funny how these fuckers keep saying that Tony cherrypicks data when he specifically says in his videos that the data he uses comes directly from the agencies themselves. Then they cry some bullshit about Tony not providing citations as a reason for ignoring what he says.

[Anonymous No.10604799]

>>10604585
You’re not supposed to post heath if you’re a retard retard

[Anonymous No.10604822]

>>10604799
Define retard

[Anonymous No.10605113]

>>10604779
Wow you're stupid. The source of the data has nothing to do with cherrypicking. Cherrypicking is only presenting a certain subset of data from the source in order to misrepresent the source. This can be seen all over Tony's blog. For example, in the blogpost linked to in the video you posted, Tony goes on and on about changes to mean temperature, but when he does the comparison to 1936 morning stations, what does he base the comparison on? Not mean temperature but "mean maximum temperature" and "percentage of days over 90 degrees." Why not just compare the average temperatures of the datasets? Probably because he tried that and it doesn't show the story he wants to show. In reality, the high quality stations agree with the adjusted temperatures:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL067640

You can provide any post you want and I'll show you Tony hiding the truth. But you're just as delusional as he is, which is why you ran away from your last threat after you got BTFO. I can do this all day, retard, you make this too easy.

[Anonymous No.10605124]

>>10604257
riddle me this batman: what counts for only 13% but makes up as much as half?

[Anonymous No.10605136]

>>10605113
The fact that you still haven’t watched the video amazes me. He literally goes over the entirety of the data and shows how data is cherrypicked to reinforce AGW. Why are you being such a cuck? What the fucking video dumbass

[Anonymous No.10605139]

>>10605124
It’s us fuckin aussies ya dumb shit cunt.

[Anonymous No.10605143]

This kills the tinfoil hat denier

[Anonymous No.10605154]

>>10605143
It would except obtaining a global mean temperature fairly accurately wasn’t even possible until about 20 years ago. Not only that, but the data they used to calculate the mean contained almost no data from Asia or the Southern Hemisphere before satellites. They also make up a significant amount of the data.

[Anonymous No.10605156]

>>10605136
>He literally goes over the entirety of the data and shows how data is cherrypicked to reinforce AGW.
I don't believe you. Last time you gave me something from Tony it turned out to be a bunch of incompetent dishonest trash. Instead of admitting it or defending it you ignored this and told me to look at more of his drivel. That's not how a rational conversation works.

Why do you constantly ignore how Tony lies and cherrypicks? You're just as much of a fraud as he is.

[Anonymous No.10605160]

>>10605156
>still hasn’t watched the video

You are a massive pussy. Anon, you don’t get any more yous from me until you watch the gottdayum video.

[Anonymous No.10605167]

>>10605154
>It would except obtaining a global mean temperature fairly accurately wasn’t even possible until about 20 years ago.
Lie.

>Not only that, but the data they used to calculate the mean contained almost no data from Asia or the Southern Hemisphere before satellites.
It was not almost no data and it was enough to calculate the mean. Pic related.

[Anonymous No.10605169]

>>10604745
Based

[Anonymous No.10605170]

>>10605160
>still have responded to >>10602130

You are a massive pussy. Anon, you don’t get any more yous from me until you watch the gottdayum post showing Tony to be a fraud based on your own link.

[Anonymous No.10605185]

>>10605160
Why don't you just say what his argument is you retarded little shit? I bet it's because you don't understand a word of what's being said, which is why you never to respond to any arguments. No one is obligated to watch your cult videos, you lost that privilege when you continued to argue in bad faith.

[Anonymous No.10605212]

>>10605185
Yup I'm right, Heller's slobbering fanboy (or maybe it's just Heller himself) is a coward and a retard who can't even put a coherent argument together. Thread's over boys.

[Anonymous No.10605261]

>>10605212
>still afraid of watching the video

[Anonymous No.10605274]

>>10604257

Ask why NASA won't tell you the truth about Apophis 99942 instead

[Anonymous No.10605296]

>>10604636
Ok so I finally found the time to watch this video and it's worse than I thought. The only errors he mentions are change in average latitude and TOBS (the thermometer reset in the video) He purposefully leaves out the transition from LiG to MMTS instruments, and all other instrumentation changes. He also leaves out changes in broader urban form surrounding station locations, and changes in localized station site characteristics.

He claims adjusting data is unnecessary because he selects only stations that he claims only reset thermometers in the morning and have not relocated. He doesn't provide sources for how he selected these stations so I can't validate anything, but out of 1,218 weather stations he only keeps data from ~150 stations which completely undermines his point from the beginning where he states that only U.S measurements are trustworthy because of the number of measurements.
He then shows graphs of ONLY max daily temperature and percent of days above 90F he's the only person in the world who uses these instead of annual mean temperature and it's pure cherry picking.

[Anonymous No.10605347]

>>10605296
>mild shock.exe

[Anonymous No.10605382]

>>10605143
I mean they can laugh at the tin hatters all they want but at the end of the day if the conspiracy actually exists they are the ones preventing it from being discovered.

[Anonymous No.10605404]

>>10605382
unedited version

[Anonymous No.10605504]

>>10605296
>worse than I though

Cognitive dissonance is a funny thing, isn’t it anons?

[Anonymous No.10605516]

>>10605296
I’m not sure if you watched the entire video because in the last third or so he shows how data is cherrypicked to support AGW. You keep accusing him of cherry picking data and I have yet to see it.

[Anonymous No.10605525]

>>10605296
He shows how data is cherrypicked by the government organizations themselves here:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eK6pYLhcJx4

[Anonymous No.10605527]

>>10605504
>>10605516
you guys are assholes. especially the guy accusing the dude who honestly watched your video and debunked it for you of having a "cognitive dissonance". absolute projection

go back to >>>/pol/ and don't come back here until you're willing to actually talk science instead of your "REEEE I ADHOMINEM YOU NOW" or "NO YOURE WRONG CUZ THE VIDEO SAID SO EVEN THOUGH YOU DEBUNKED IT" retardation

[Anonymous No.10605852]

>>10605516
>>10605525
He's already proven he has zero credibility why would I trust another video when he's shown he can't be trusted to argue in good faith?

[Anonymous No.10605861]

>>10604585

[Anonymous No.10605870]

>discover that your temperature record has a consistent bias
>correct for consistent bias
this is normal science

[Anonymous No.10605913]

>>10604774
>In the video Tony shows why this is bullshit and how the actual data shows a slight cooling trend over the 20th century.
No he doesn't.

[Anonymous No.10606153]

>>10605296
So the video is exactly the same as the blogpost I already debunked, proving that Tony's buttboy's demands to watch the video are completely pointless. This leaves the question of whether buttboy did this because he wants to purposefully waste my time or because he is intellectually incapable of understanding what the video is saying and can't recognize thst my post is a response to it. Can you certify this for us, buttboy?

[Anonymous No.10606348]

>>10604257
>alter
...is the retarded version of "correct".

[Anonymous No.10606352]

>>10605185
>I bet
there is no wagering at 4chan, Grandpa

[Anonymous No.10606367]

whadda maroon

[Anonymous No.10606557]

>>10605852
If you argue with climate alarmists enough, eventually they will always break and get down to this point right here where they admit that their beliefs are based 100% on authority and credentialism.

[Anonymous No.10606672]

>>10605261

>ThE vIdEo ThE vIdEo ThE vIdEo ThE vIdEo ThE vIdEo

[Anonymous No.10606678]

>>10606557
It’s literally all they do. They keep pointing to research papers from academics and other sources but they don’t realize that the data itself is wrong.

[Anonymous No.10606718]

>>10606557
>>10606678

Only fringe youtubers have the correct data/interpretations, and it couldn't possibly be an appeal to authority to cite those guys! I mean never mind that those damned s̶c̶i̶e̶n̶t̶i̶s̶t̶s̶ alarmists keep tirelessly debunking deniers......

[Anonymous No.10606772]

>>10606718
But anon, Tony uses past and present data directly from NOAA and NASA. All he is doing is pointing out how they alter the data to their liking

[Anonymous No.10606801]

>Climate change denial
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.10606864]

>>10606672
yes, we want you to expose yourself to arguments against your own position. imagine it!

[Anonymous No.10606867]

>>10606718
>fringe youtubers
unlike the noble credentialed government sponsored Official Climate Scientists™ with their gold medals and crowns of science

[Anonymous No.10606893]

>>10606867
What qualifications do you need to meet to be a youtube conspiracist? As far as I can tell most of them can't even do basic math.

[Anonymous No.10606955]

>>10606893
>it's only peer review if your work is reviewed by people who already agree with it and are too scared to rock the boat

[Anonymous No.10606957]

>>10606955
Based. That’s what if the biggest things these fuckers don’t realize. Scientific research is absolutely affect by human bias.

[Anonymous No.10606963]

>>10604257
You have to scrub the data to prevent p-hacking. Altering the data is the right thing to do, otherwise you could prove literally anything with such a large dataset.

[Anonymous No.10607004]

>>10606772
By lying and cherrypicking. Which he does time and time again.

[Anonymous No.10607009]

>>10606557
Did your parents not tell you about the boy who cried wolf? If you lie about the same thing over and over again and I take you seriously and then find out you lied EVERY SINGLE TIME eventually you just aren't worth the time anymore and I will ignore everything you have to say.

[Anonymous No.10607011]

>>10606678
Of course you can't prove the data is wrong without lies misrepresentation and cherry picking BUT ITS THE DATA THATS WRONG!!

[Anonymous No.10607013]

>>10607009
That's why people have given up arguing with these climate alarmists and their constant warnings of immediate climate destruction

[Anonymous No.10607018]

>>10607011
>showing that other people have cherrypicked their data is cherrypicking

[Anonymous No.10607036]

>>10607013
Every IPCC prediction has been accurate/ underestimated the effects of AGW

[Anonymous No.10607047]

>>10607018
He never did this though.

[Anonymous No.10607152]

>>10606864
The only one ignoring arguments against their position is you though. What a bunch of pathetic hypocrites.

[Anonymous No.10607161]

>>10607047
Yes he did. He has done this dozens of times now.

>>10607152
>post video from Tony
>”I’m not wasting my time with him he is a liar”
What does he mean by this

[Anonymous No.10607211]

This meme accurately represents how all the arguements done in this thread will look like. There is no way these idiots are gonna change their minds.

[Anonymous No.10607283]

>>10607161
I already watched one video and found he lied, omitted important information, cherry picked etc. Why wouldn't he do it all again in another video?

[Anonymous No.10607303]

>>10607283
>ad hominem, the post

It seems to me that climatefags are too scared to watch a few videos because they might feel dumb

[Anonymous No.10607315]

>>10607211
debunk this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc

[Anonymous No.10607334]

>>10607161
>post video from Tony
>it gets debunked here >>10605113
>no response from the deniertard except demanding that I watch more videos
If you don't respond to the argument then you forfeit. Thanks for admitting you lost.

[Anonymous No.10607344]

>>10607334
>”you’ve been debunked”
>”thanks for admitting you lost”
What does he mean by this

[Anonymous No.10607356]

>>10607344
>still no response
Thank you for again admitting you lost.

[Anonymous No.10607381]

>>10607315
Dont give me some 12 minute video to watch i could do the same thing to every arguement. If you understand the issue. Say it with your own words. What do u want me to debunk in summary. I dont have your free time.

[Anonymous No.10607388]

>>10607303
>MUH AD HOMINEM
I've already discovered his arguments previously are pure lies and misrepresentation. Are you suggesting his methods have changed? Is his credibility somehow not damaged by the fact that he appears to be a habitual liar?

[Anonymous No.10607391]

>>10605212
I talked with Heller yesterday on twitter saying that his topics were getting debunk on /sci/ and if he had anything to say.

It could be him actually kek.

[Anonymous No.10607407]

>>10607381
If you're interested, you will watch it later, but let me explain my scepticism in my own way:
1. Global warming apologists use unscientific methods: "every scientist agrees on this" - first of all it is not a scientific argument; second - where have you seen ANY issue every scientist agreed on?
Digging further into science I can see that EVERY field is corrupted.

[Anonymous No.10607412]

>>10607036
>Every IPCC prediction has been accurate

[Anonymous No.10607428]

>>10607381
>climatefag is scared of another video

It really is pathetic at this point

[Anonymous No.10607429]

>>10607283
I'm not sure what your actual "cherry picking" argument is here. It's my understanding that Tony is pointing out instances where data was manipulated in a way to prove what the people wanted to see. Do you consider that "cherry picking" because he isn't talking about all the times that they didn't manipulate the data? Does that even matter? If they've done it once, then they're suspect.

[Anonymous No.10607432]

>>10607407
>1. Global warming apologists use unscientific methods: "every scientist agrees on this" - first of all it is not a scientific argument; second - where have you seen ANY issue every scientist agreed on?

Hm im pretty sure all of them who aren't lobbiest payed to deny everything agree on the fundamental laws of thermodynamics, physics and chemistry all of which explain GW.

>Digging further into science I can see that EVERY field is corrupted.

Okay. So... do you want me to share emails of lobbiest people who have taken money from big oil to push the idea that there is no global warming? Politicians have done it as well. I encourage you to rly rethink what you are saying here. You are saying that scientific fields are all corrupted. How come world wide agencies from all across the world made their own models and got the same results? All corrupted? Tin foil hat?

Even Exxon got it kek but they covered it up.

[Anonymous No.10607435]

>>10607432
>scientific consensus is equal to truth
>”I fucking love SCIENCE!!!”

[Anonymous No.10607437]

>>10607428
So if i gave you videos all lasting more than 10 minutes you would watch them all check the description and then get back to me debunking it?

The moment someone gives a video with nothing else you know that person knows fuck all about the subject and can't explain it with his own words so he is easily gullible.

Fucking give sources with data not videos.

[Anonymous No.10607444]

>>10607432
>hundreds of billions made from the climate alarm industry
>every single western government on his side
>still pretending he is the underdog fighting muh evil oil companies with their endless money when oil companies now are carbon tax bitch paypigs

[Anonymous No.10607447]

>>10607435

>scientific consensus is equal to truth


So there is no consensus on basic physics, thermodynamics and chemistry?


Uh.. HEY EVERYONE this retard anon is gonna debunk science we thought we knew for centuries. Hear this retard out.

[Anonymous No.10607452]

>CO2 used to be 4000ppm in the atmosphere
>by 4000BC it had fallen down to 280ppm
>after two centuries of industrial revolution it's now at 400pm

HOLY SHIT WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE

[Anonymous No.10607455]

>>10607437
>easily gullible
That’s a pretty big assumption anon.

>give sources with data
They are in the video. I just watched it and I’m not the guy who posted it either

[Anonymous No.10607456]

>>10607447
>people agree on Newtonian mechanics therefore my highly politicized economic quasi-religious pyramid scheme scam is real

[Anonymous No.10607459]

>>10604257
>Why did NASA and NOAA alter the old temperature data?

*Why did NASA and NOAA update the old temperature data?

Answer’s in the statement. They got better data.

>And if it was done on purpose for some good reason then why try to hide the fact?

They didn’t.

Bait thread. Please die.

[Anonymous No.10607460]

>>10607432
Watch that 11 minute video, kid.
I'm pretty sure he addresses that graph of yours.

[Anonymous No.10607462]

>>10607459
>They got better data.
what a coincidence the new data confirms their beliefs, pretty handy and not suspicious at all

[Anonymous No.10607463]

>>10607447
>So there is no consensus on basic physics
There is, but you won't like it:

Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:

It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.[17]

[Anonymous No.10607468]

>>10607462
>what a coincidence the new data confirms their beliefs, pretty handy and not suspicious at all

No, it’s not coincidental at all since the majority of research into the subject shows a warming trend over the last century due to increased greenhouse effect. Can you please provide evidence of vast conspiracies?

[Anonymous No.10607469]

>>10607463
This would be a nice story but unfortunately Einstein did not develop special or general relativity.

[Anonymous No.10607473]

>>10607468
>Can you please provide evidence of vast conspiracies?
You just admitted in your previous post that the scientists changed the data so it suited their beliefs.

[Anonymous No.10607475]

>>10607447

[Anonymous No.10607478]

>>10607463
Robert sounds a bit ignorant.

Einstein: “ "We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an Aether. According to the general theory of relativity space without Aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this Aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."

[Anonymous No.10607480]

>>10607473
>You just admitted in your previous post that the scientists changed the data so it suited their beliefs.

Nope. I said it was updated because better data was acquired. Only took you two posts to lie. Bye!

[Anonymous No.10607485]

>>10607480
And "better" here is defined as being data which confirms the hypothesis you want to believe is true.

[Anonymous No.10607488]

>>10607444
>>10607456
>>hundreds of billions made from the climate alarm industry
>>still pretending he is the underdog fighting muh evil oil companies with their endless money when oil companies
>>people agree on Newtonian mechanics therefore my highly politicized economic quasi-religious pyramid scheme scam is real

Dumbasses (pic related)

[Anonymous No.10607494]

>>10607488
but they don't dwarf the resources of NASA, NOAA or the Department of Energy which have multiple billions that outstrips any poxy oil company money. given that the Kyoto Protocol exists, which group do you think has had more success in lobbying governments, alarmists or oil companies? There was only a story today that British Steel had to take out a loan of £114m in order to pay off its carbon tax payments. They have these companies over a barrel fucking them hard.

[Anonymous No.10607498]

These threads are literally propaganda.
Climate change is real, man-made, and a ever growing cost for all of us. All of these are facts. There is nothing to discuss.

In science, we DO NOT engage with nutjobs.

[Anonymous No.10607503]

>>10607498
Animal life and vegetation is responsible for emitting 10x more CO2 than humans. Climate change is animal made. We need to kill the animals. There is nothing to discuss. We do NOT engage with animal-made climate devastation denialists. Now give me your taxes.

[Anonymous No.10607507]

>>10607494
NASA, NOAA, and the DoE are government agencies with broad focuses. They have 0 billions to just give people. Are you a troll?

[Anonymous No.10607511]

>>10607494
Blah blah blah bark bark

Sources that NASA, NOAA etc have been lobbying? None

[Sage No.10607512]

>>10607503
>Animal life and vegetation is responsible for emitting 10x more CO2 than humans.

The biosphere reabsorbs it’s CO2. Humans contribute to CO2 without draining any. False analogy, and showcases your immense ignorance.

[Anonymous No.10607515]

>>10607507
The point is that the global propaganda efforts and consolidation of political control across Western governments by alarmists vastly vastly outstrips any efforts of fossil fuel companies. The fact that you and most people believe they are the bad guys is proof enough that this campaign has been successful. Governments literally tax these companies extra for their evil CO2 pollution and then use the money stripped from them to fund more propaganda to justify stripping more in the future. They have lost.

[Anonymous No.10607516]

>>10607494
They may not be winning outside Burgerland, but exactly that. NASA, NOAA, EPA, department of energy, these are not lobbying groups, exxon is a lobbying group, NOAA is not. The current president is a denier, therefore, by default, the oil companies will always have more power.

[Anonymous No.10607518]

>>10607507
I've met people convinced that NASA/EPA/NOAA has death squads that silence people that discover "the truth".
Anon might just be one of those

[Anonymous No.10607522]

>>10607511
So you don't think that NASA and NOAA are institutions which push climate change? Their job is to lobby the world. They don't need to lobby the government, they *are* the government!

[Anonymous No.10607528]

>>10607516
You don't need to lobby the government when you are the government. Bush's administration didn't go for AGW either but they were still powerless against it because the alarmists had more power.

[Anonymous No.10607530]

>>10607515
again, conspiracy, I wouldn't be surprised if you worked for an oil company. Are you scared? You should be. If coal and oil wasn't such a problem, then how do you think climate change has gained such ground politically? People know it's real, they're not just shooting their economy in the foot for no reason by taxing fossil fuel companies.

[Anonymous No.10607531]

>>10607503
>Now give me your taxes.
Glad that you let it slip that you are ideologically motivated, tard.
Facts and science are true irrespective of your ideology.
If your ideology is found lacking, you do not start denying reality to keep adhering to it.
Instead, you fix your ideology; make it conform to reality, so that people might once again find it appealing.

[Anonymous No.10607534]

>>10607515
>the propagandist claims that others are pushing propaganda
Oh boy.

[JML No.10607535]

I just want and seek the truth. My problem is having to follow the money and who benefits the most.

[Sage No.10607542]

>>10607535
Third-world people who aren’t turned into refugees in a century? Guess they’re pulling the strings

[Anonymous No.10607543]

>>10607522
>>10607528
*tin foil hat internsifies*

[Anonymous No.10607544]

>>10607530
>you are a conspiracy theorist
>also I suspect that you are part of an oil company conspiracy

>how do you think climate change has gained such ground politically
Because alarmists control the governments, control the funding and control all levers of power?

>>10607531
>Facts and science are true irrespective of your ideology.
If comrade Stalin wants Lysenkoism to be true, then it is. You are extremely naive to the extent to which "science" fragile and easily gamed and distorted by power.

>>10607534
Most of the climate change media that is put out by alarmists *is* propaganda. Even though we are both in ideologically entrenched opposite positions, I think even you would have to admit that showing pictures of frightened polar bears on melting ice floes can't be described as anything other than propaganda.

[Anonymous No.10607547]

>>10607528
>You don't need to lobby the government when you are the government. Bush's administration didn't go for AGW either but they were still powerless against it because the alarmists had more power.

He controlled the funding NASA, NOAA, and the DoE get, you dumb faggot.

[Anonymous No.10607549]

>>10607528
I mean, Bush, however begrudgingly, did accept climate change. He may have not exactly been very enthusiastic about acknowledging it, though.

[Anonymous No.10607551]

>>10607535
I wonder if governments might benefit from a narrative that allows them to increase taxes on fossil fuel companies and get billions from them.

I wonder if scientists might benefit from increasing grant funding by the continued existence of this supposed problem.

I wonder if activists might benefit from the narrative that allows them to portray themselves as anti-capitalist heroes and planetary saviors.

[Anonymous No.10607552]

>>10607544
>Because alarmists control the governments, control the funding and control all levers of power?

Donald Trump confirmed believes in climate change.

>Most of the climate change media that is put out by alarmists *is* propaganda. Even though we are both in ideologically entrenched opposite positions, I think even you would have to admit that showing pictures of frightened polar bears on melting ice floes can't be described as anything oth

Nope. Propaganda is by definition biased and/or misleading, and polar bear habitats are declining.

[Anonymous No.10607554]

>>10607544
irrelevant argument, total circular logic.
>dur the alarmists control the government, because they control the government at all levels dur

[Anonymous No.10607560]

>>10607522
>So you don't think that NASA and NOAA are institutions which push climate change? Their job is to lobby the world. They don't need to lobby the government, they *are* the government!

Links? Sources? Fucking none. All i see is assumptions coming out of you like written diarrhea

But i have them. 4chan takes it has spam for some reason. But i can find a way.

There is another link i have provided but cant find it rn.

[Anonymous No.10607561]

>>10607547
No, he didn't.
GOP "controlled" all parts of government in 2000 and yet they didn't actually reform anything that would give them a long term advantage. Why wouldn't they do that if they supposedly controlled everything? There are many answers to this question but the main one is that they basically didn't actually have power and the permanent government did.

[Anonymous No.10607563]

>>10607544
>Lysenkoism
Was never mainstream science even with the U.S.S.R backing behind it. Your point works against you.

>Most of the climate change media that is put out by alarmists *is* propaganda.
Quite the opposite. The media is extremely underestimating the issue to the point that everyone, even those who don't reject the science like you, are not quite aware of the risks we are facing.

[Anonymous No.10607572]

>>10607563
>Was never mainstream science even with the U.S.S.R backing behind it. Your point works against you.
This is completely irrelevant to the point I am making that science is fragile and has no defenses against power.

Give me control of a scientific community's grant funding and I'll be able to manufacture whatever truth I want to see.

>The media is extremely underestimating the issue to the point that everyone

Ah, the old "yes, but they don't believe in it hard enough! sure, comrade Stalin does a good job, but we won't get through this with just one Stalin, we need fifty Stalins! I'm such a great "critic" of my own regime by telling it to do exactly what it's doing even harder!"

[Anonymous No.10607574]

>>10607563
>underestimating
Anon is trolling confirmed.

[Anonymous No.10607586]

>>10607574
Those headlines do not show what is in store for you in 20 years. They just say "shit is warming up" without actually telling you the impacts that that will have on your life in the near future.
That is exactly my point.
It's like being in a car with your eyes closed and your driver tells you he is speeding up.
But he doesn't tell you that he is steering towards a cliff.

[Anonymous No.10607593]

>>10607586
>what is in store for you in 20 years.
Remember 20 years ago when Al Gore was telling us what's in store for us in 20 years? And then nothing happened? Remember that?

[Anonymous No.10607600]

>>10607586
Lol you are going to eat your words. Nothing significant will happen with out climate in 20 years.

>>10607593
Yeah and on top of that he has a mansion on the california coast

[Anonymous No.10607601]

>>10607574
>Al gore

Not a scientist
Not an expert
No peer reviewed papers ever said that

Fuck off cunt

[Anonymous No.10607608]

>>10607593
Yes and it happened.
The climate has changed and we are experiencing the affects. In a lot of northern countries for the past few years we have lost the four seasons. Now it's just a mild winter and long summer or some variation of that.
Food prices have already reacted. Erratic weather has already caused a lot of damage. Drought and lack of water is already a problem in many countries.
You are free to ignore all of this that is happening around you but the everyday people are not. That is the only reason that climate change denial has fallen so rapidly in these past few years. Because now pretty much everyone can just see it happen all around them.

[Anonymous No.10607610]

>>10607560
>Links? Sources?
I would have thought that you agreed with me that NASA and NOAA have both taken a climate alarmist position. Do you not agree? Do you think they are evil denialists? James Hansen is a denier now? Is this what you think?

[Anonymous No.10607622]

>>10607610
>I would have thought that you agreed with me that NASA and NOAA have both taken a climate alarmist position. Do you not agree?

Why would you think i agree? Have you not seen what i have been doing for the past 2 hours?
Providing sources proving the exact opposite and asking for evidence of those facts. Until now no1 gave me. Just assumptions and tin foil hat conspirancy ideas

[Anonymous No.10607623]

>>10607593
>>10607600
>NOTHING IS HAPPENING
>LALALALAL CANNOT HEAR YOU LALALALALAL

https://www.euronews.com/2019/04/24/sweden-and-norway-concerned-by-unusual-pre-season-forest-fires

[Anonymous No.10607624]

>>10607608
Food prices should get cheaper since crop yields are higher in warmer temperatures. Thanks AGW!

[Anonymous No.10607628]

>>10607622
So you don't think that NASA and NOAA are organizations that are teaching the public and the dangers of climate change? That's what your position is? This is very unexpected.

>>10607623
A forest fire? Woah! Those have never happened before. It must be the climate what done it!

[Anonymous No.10607632]

>>10607624
Droughts and fires will be more frequent. Thank you AGW!

[Anonymous No.10607638]

>>10607632
This chart is a climate change denying chart since it doesn't list the fact that climate change will also cause volcanoes to erupt and earthquakes and tornadoes will rip open half the earth. Smh!

[Anonymous No.10607651]

>>10607628
Ironic

There was massive cuts on education in Oklahoma causing schools to have no supplies.
The teachers protested.
Big oil companies then offered supplies with books along with it of cartoons teaching kids how global warming is fake. Also they told teachers to teach little kids how GW is not real.

This rly happened and you are an idiot who is not aware of whats going on.

Here are the interviews and the video explaining it.
https://youtu.be/-VojHT92LGI

[Anonymous No.10607653]

>>10607624
Except the opposite happened.

>The World’s Food Supply is Made Insecure by Climate Change

>In the next 30 years, food supply and food security will be severely threatened if little or no action is taken to address climate change and the food system’s vulnerability to climate change.
>The IPCC states, “Taken as a whole, the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.”
>Future projections in global yield trends of both maize and wheat indicate a significant decline; these declines can be attributed to the negative impacts of climate change arising from increasing greenhouse gas emissions.
>The negative effects from climate change will cause changes in global weather patterns and cycles that will be both unpredictable and long term. It is foreseen that the fishing industry will also experience significant disruption, with salt water and fresh water fishing at risk. This situation implies a great urgency, as the children who are born in today's world will not have reached graduation age before these problems will have materialized, unless immediate action is taken. We have already seen climate effects on yields in a number of areas, including Europe and southern Asia, since the last IPCC Assessment Report in 2007.
>There is no doubt in the evidence and conclusions of more than 1,000 global and regional studies, that a temperature rise of 1 to 2 degrees Celsius will generally mean a loss in yield of a number of crop varieties, both in the tropical and the temperate regions. An increase of 3 to 4 degrees later on in this century will have very severe consequences for global food security and supply.

>https://academicimpact.un.org/content/world%E2%80%99s-food-supply-made-insecure-climate-change

[Anonymous No.10607657]

>>10607628
A forest fire in "spring" is highly unusual, yes.

[Anonymous No.10607658]

>>10607632
And this has yet to be observed. Forest fires were actually more frequent in the 1930s than now

[Anonymous No.10607659]

>>10607653
>This situation implies a great urgency, as the children who are born in today's world will not have reached graduation age before these problems will have materialized, unless immediate action is taken.

This was in 2016 so we are talking ~2030 which is only 10 years away.

[Anonymous No.10607669]

You know what's funny?
OP has to come on here to deny climate change because he does not have the balls to out himself as a tard IRL.

[Anonymous No.10607673]

>>10607657
highly unusual? it must mean the earth is about to be destroyed by firestorms because CO2 increased by a fraction of a percent.

[Anonymous No.10607676]

>>10607673
It means growing costs caused by climate change, imposed on all of us, including you.
Your standard of living will fall as a result of climate change, whether you acknowledge it or not.

[Anonymous No.10607677]

>>10607669
Nobody doesn't think the climate changes and it's a strawman to say that people who think AGW is either bullshit or not important do not believe that the climate change. I do think the climate changes and I think it's going to change away from having higher CO2 due to excess biosequestration in the coming decades.

[Anonymous No.10607679]

>>10607669
I’m a nobody so no one would give a shit and yes other people know you fuck. Not every sucks the long dick of “science” like you do.

[Anonymous No.10607681]

>>10607676
>>10607653
Learn to know what a scam looks like when you see one. When a homeless man comes up to you on the street and spins some story about how his daughter needs kidney medication so can you spare him an extra $20. That is literally what the IPCC is doing to the planet. The correct response is to keep walking and to not be a gullible sucker.

[Anonymous No.10607691]

>>10607669
The OP is one of those edgy losers who believes they are sticking it to society by actively trying to destroy it.
He thinks he is doing it out of spite and out of his own free will, but in reality he has been indoctrinated by Russian psyops shills who have convinced him that
1. he is a loser without any chance at a normal life (not true)
2. he should therefore embrace this and become an anti-social anti-hero

[Anonymous No.10607697]

>>10607677
>>10607679
What you "think" is irrelevant. You either agree with the science or you don't.

[Anonymous No.10607699]

>>10607691
>atmospheric CO2 increases from 400ppm to 401ppm

EARTH = ACTIVELY DESTROYED

[Anonymous No.10607705]

>>10607697
What is happening in reality is irrelevant since the climate scientists are always going to ignore it and keep producing justifications for their golden cash cow funding to continue.

[Anonymous No.10607715]

>>10607679
What if I despise those who accept god AND those who accept scientific theories without understanding them?
>>10607697
Science is rather diverse. But academia usually preaches only few of them (and not because those few are the best, but because they're safest. So most of graduates cannot make neither nuclear reactor/weapon nor drugs or explosives by yourself and those who studied economics don't know first thing about investments. But let's be thankful to those academic faggots for not burning us for fuck sake.

[Anonymous No.10607716]

>>10607681
The trillion dollar oil industry has caused countless wars to keep their profit. Millions of people have died and tens of countries have been destroyed because of oil.
Of course the are the bad guys in this story.

Imagine trying to paint the scientists doing science, with zero history of doing anything bad, as the evil guys, while the entities that have killed millions of people and destroyed tens of countries to get richer are supposed to be the good guys.

[Anonymous No.10607717]

I'm sorry for the shittey grammar of mine.

[Anonymous No.10607719]

>>10607705
>>10607699
You are working against your own self interest. Cuckolds.

[Anonymous No.10607720]

>>10607716
yeah this post appears sane and isn't hysterical propaganda at all

>scientists doing science, with zero history of doing anything bad

committing fraud is bad. falsifying data to scare everyone and steal money is bad.

[Anonymous No.10607721]

>>10607716
>zero history of doing anything bad
I'm sorry to break it for you, but big pharma is way worse than big oil
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQwwGPiyW9M

[Anonymous No.10607738]

>>10607719
it's not in my interests to have billions taken out of the economy and set on fire because of something that isn't happening

[Anonymous No.10607740]

>>10607429
He throws out data from over 1000 stations (doesn't give us his selection criteria) then shows graphs of daily max tempurature and % of days instead above 90F and compares them to annual mean temperature instead of comparing mean annual temp to mean annual temp. That's textbook cherrypicking.

[Anonymous No.10607743]

The longer we wait the more expensive it becomes.

[Anonymous No.10607750]

Climate change is exactly everything that is wrong with modern "democracy": private profits, socialized losses.

[Anonymous No.10607758]

>>10607452
>CO2 was higher 485 Million years ago
>the sun was dimmer 485 million years ago
>CO2 levels and climate changed gradually over 485 million years, giving the ecosystem ample time to adapt.
>this is somehow the same as increasing greenhouse gases to their highest levels in 5 million years in 80 years.
Based retard

[Anonymous No.10607792]

>>10607758
the proliferation of mobile phones is at its highest level since the beginning of the universe too. it's not a problem. and neither is going from 280 to 400ppm CO2 in two centuries. the biosphere will adapt and absorb it.

[Anonymous No.10607795]

>>10607792
(citation needed)

[Anonymous No.10607802]

>>10607758
>>10607795
Mars atmosphere is 95% greenhouses gases. it's not a problem because its atmosphere isn't thick enough for it to be a problem. Increasing Earth's greenhouse gases by 0.01% isn't a problem because we have a biosphere that exists by absorbing it. Organic life already absorbs over 50% of atmospheric CO2.

[Anonymous No.10607803]

>>10607792
>retard resorts to non sequitur when faced with the truth
10/10

[Anonymous No.10607807]

>>10607802
*that should be >50% of CO2 emissions

>>10607803
something being high doesn't imply a problem is my point. CO2 is relatively high because we have industry now.

[Anonymous No.10607825]

>>10607802
So your entire argument is that the biosphere can absorb it? What happens when human activity produces far more CO2 than the biosphere can absorb? (which it has as evidenced by atmospheric CO2 reaching the highest levels in 5 Million years after only 80 years of emissions.)

[Anonymous No.10607890]

I'll make it simple for everyone. Someday, we'll run out of oil. It may not be all gone but there'll be so little left, that it will be too expensive for the vast majority of humanity. At that point, CO2 emissions will began to drop but so will the standard of living. So the argument is over whether we'll fuck up the planet before hitting peak oil or not. So why the fuck are we dicking around and not phasing out fossil fuels and replacing them with carbon neutral 4th gen nuclear reactors?

[Anonymous No.10607896]

Climate change will only impact niggers and poor people.
If you have at least $300k in savings, you'll be fine. Just move to an area which is not prone to flooding, wildfires, drought, heat waves, hurricanes, tsunamis and immigrants.
Better do it now though cause housing markets are already responding to climate change effects.

[Anonymous No.10607924]

>>10607896
As soon as the mutts face burger shortages due to failing crops they're going to invade anywhere that still has fertile land. Your pitiful saving wont protect you from being drafted and dying on the front lines of WW3

[Anonymous No.10607952]

>>10607740
>doesn’t give us his selection criteria

Yes he does. He specifically showed all the data first and then a smaller subset in order to account for a measuring bias. Both plots showed a general trend of cooling anyway.

[Anonymous No.10607960]

>>10607924
I'm rich enough to avoid the coming madness. Let the poorfags die. They deserve it.
My parents are immigrants too, so I have dual passports and comfy houses on two continents.
And the cherry on top is that this coming catastrophe is going to be full of tasty investment opportunities for those with means and capital.

[Anonymous No.10607972]

The CO2 in the atmosphere will be there for 1000s of years

just like the microplastics in the air. Its just going to build up because our leaders and cowards and the constituencies are craven and unintelligent.

Political economists analysed population-level key issues and found that 10% is the critical threshold. As long as 10% refuse to change, everything will revolve around them. This is why never allow Muslims get to 10% in your country. "All progress depends on the Unreasonable man"

[Anonymous No.10607982]

>>10607972
>Its just going to build up because our leaders and cowards and the constituencies are craven and unintelligent.
Actually it's because it doesn't affect us. It only affects poorfags. So why should we give a shit?

[Anonymous No.10608044]

>>10607960
>>10607982
No you aren't unless you're rich enough to literally have your own private army you'll probably die first when the U.S economy collapses. All your neighbors will kill you and enjoy your wealth.

[Anonymous No.10608080]

>>10607982
Someone never learned the lesson of the french/every revolution. If you don't keep the poorfags happy they kill you.

[Anonymous No.10608085]

>>10608044
>No you aren't unless you're rich enough to literally have your own private army you'll probably die first when the U.S economy collapses.
LOL, economic collapse does mean societal collapse. Worst come to worst it will be just like Venezuela with martial law and food/energy rations (for the poorfags).

[Anonymous No.10608088]

>>10608080
>Someone never learned the lesson of the french/every revolution.
We did though. We now prepare for every contingency. We are out of the country in a matter of hours before you faggots even realize what you want to do.

[Anonymous No.10608101]

>>10608088
> thinking global world applies only to the top 1%
Next time you will be killed wherever the fuck you are, and most likely nobody will understand how.

[Anonymous No.10608134]

>>10608085
Food shortages force the US+NATO china and Russia to battle over remaining farmland: Option A U.S eventually wins conventional war, China and Russia faced with starvation utilize Nuclear weapons. Society as we know it ceases to exist. You get eaten.

Option B: The U.S+NATO loses the conventional war, faced with starvation they choose to utilize nuclear weapons. Society as we know it ceases to exist. You get eaten.

Option C: Neither side gains superiority conventionally, peace treaties are signed, due to losses from the war and failing crops the global economy collapses. Society is no longer able to feed the masses. You get eaten.

Option D: The U.S+nato loses the conventional war and peacefully surrenders unconditionally, Russia and China plunder the U.S. You get eaten.

Not looking so good for you oh and fleeing the country won't help unless you know a non NATO affiliated country with the military strength to resist invasion from all superpowers, and a geographic location that prevents climate from harming food production.

[Anonymous No.10608257]

>>10607825
>What happens when human activity produces far more CO2 than the biosphere can absorb?
that has already been happening for 2 centuries and is the reason CO2 is very very slowly increasing. it will catch up though.

[Anonymous No.10608263]

>>10607982
>Actually it's because it doesn't affect us. It only affects poorfags. So why should we give a shit?

I'm not sure. Tell me more about yourself

[Anonymous No.10608267]

>what can we do
Its called the Sunrise movement

[Anonymous No.10608272]

>>10608257
>very very slowly.
>CO2 levels jumped to the highest point in 5 Million years over 80 years of emissions.
There's no evidence that suggests the earth will magically absorb more CO2 than it has historically, in fact increased temperatures hinder the earths ability to absorb CO2, mainly due to decreased solubility of CO2 in higher temperature oceans, as well as human caused deforestation. If CO2 emissions aren't reduced the earth will never absorb more CO2 than we release and atmospheric concentrations will not go down.

[Anonymous No.10608293]

>>10608272
yes, because the industrial revolution never occurred previously in those 5 million years.

>There's no evidence that suggests the earth will magically absorb more CO2 than it has historically

yes, there is plenty of evidence actually: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event

How do you think it went down from 4000pm in the first place? Where do you think it went? It got absorbed. That's how we got out of all those previous thermal maximum epochs.

[Anonymous No.10608301]

>>10608272
>the earth will never absorb more CO2 than we release and atmospheric concentrations will not go down
it did in the past and it will in the future, even if we have to forcibly stimulate cyanobacteria and phytoplankton growth

[Anonymous No.10608306]

>>10608293
>>10608301
Ok so we agree that if humanity ceases all emissions over the course of several thousand years the atmosphere will eventually return to pre industrial levels of CO2

[Anonymous No.10608309]

rebellion.earth

join the rebellion

[Anonymous No.10608316]

>>10608306
if the biosphere remains completely static, yes; but it won't. it's a living superorganism and bacteria and other small organisms evolve pretty fast. you know Tibetans can oxygenate their blood longer than other humans because they lived at such high altitudes, right? all that extra CO2 is just waiting to be gobbled up.

[Anonymous No.10608317]

>>10608301
> forcibly stimulate cyanobacteria

Uhh yeah, lets dispose with accessible solutions and go about wrassling with the vast populations of undersea microbes supplying 50% of our oxygen

[Anonymous No.10608323]

>>10608317
yes, let's.

[Anonymous No.10608326]

>>10608316
This is the dumbest shit ever

Joe Rogan pls leave

[Anonymous No.10608327]

>>10608316
>Palynological controls and calibration with the high-resolution geomagnetic reversal record allows the duration of the event to be estimated at 800,000 years.

yeah ok 800,000 years sounds reasonable

[Anonymous No.10608333]

>>10608323
The acidification of their environment and the disturbance of the thermal currents wasn't enough. Now brainlets want to turn the ocean into a terrarium

[Anonymous No.10608360]

>>10608326
evolution is real

>>10608333
oh no. how will the poor bacteria cope? they have such a hard time. let's have a charity drive for them.

[Anonymous No.10608365]

>>10608360
please tell me what your idea of an evolutionary timescale is.

[Anonymous No.10608381]

>>10608365
what kind of question is this, it depends on each organism's average reproductive cycle period. blue whale populations respond slower to their environment than do krill.

[Anonymous No.10608400]

>>10607653
Did you even read your own article?
>Countries in the Northern Hemisphere, especially Scandinavian countries, are currently experiencing some positive effects from climate change in terms of crop yields.

[Anonymous No.10608432]

>>10608381
Ok so you brought up the Azolla event, I think that's very relevant as it's a similar problem as what we're talking about right now.
So atmospheric CO2 was relativity stable for about 200 million years, making conditions perfect for the evolution of the necessary life to trigger the Azolla event, after about 200 million years of evolution, the event began and 800,000 years later atmospheric CO2 was greatly reduced. So I think you're right, the earth's biosphere will adapt and in a few 100 million years it will have evolved a solution to the problem we caused in under 100.

[Anonymous No.10608441]

>>10608400
Did you?
>However, these effects are not permanent and will not balance the global negative effects of climate change. There is no doubt in the evidence and conclusions of more than 1,000 global and regional studies, that a temperature rise of 1 to 2 degrees Celsius will generally mean a loss in yield of a number of crop varieties, both in the tropical and the temperate regions. An increase of 3 to 4 degrees later on in this century will have very severe consequences for global food security and supply.

[Anonymous No.10608447]

>>10608432
for a start higher CO2 isn't a problem, you just think it is because you've been scammed by people who want your taxes. second of all, organisms exist that can biosequester CO2 meaning that even if it was a problem, which it isn't, this can be dealt with. now will you stop shitting your pants in fear over this?

[Anonymous No.10608453]

>>10608447
So the laws of physics aren't real and insulating something doesn't increase temperature and organisms that sequester CO2 over geologic timescales will save us in 20 years without reductions in emissions? Is this bait?

[Anonymous No.10608460]

>>10608400
I’m sure Greenland will be lovely while India and Africa suffer droughts, creating climate refugees. What a moron.

>>10608447
>for a start higher CO2 isn't a problem

Yes it is, because CO2 is a greenhouse gas and creates positive feedback reactions.

>Organisms exist which can sequester CO2

Oh, like the forests we’re chopping down, the coral reefs that are dying, and the sea grasslands turning into urchin barrens? Oh boy can’t wait to plant a bunch of trees so the greenhouse effect we caused will go away over thousands of years.

[Anonymous No.10608463]

>>10608447
DAMN YOU SVANTE ARRHENIUS TRYING TO STEAL MY TAX DOLLARS YOU DAMN GLOBALIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.10608479]

>>10608453
organisms are already sequestering more than half of current emissions. what do you believe the bottleneck to this process is?

>>10608460
>Yes it is, because CO2 is a greenhouse gas and creates positive feedback reactions.

whoever told you this was lying to you and not even the IPCC believes it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect
>On the Earth the IPCC states that "a 'runaway greenhouse effect'—analogous to [that of] Venus—appears to have virtually no chance of being induced by anthropogenic activities."[2]

>Oh, like the forests we’re chopping down, the coral reefs that are dying, and the sea grasslands turning into urchin barrens?

we should be re-foresting anyway but not because of some bullshit boogeyman scare story

>the greenhouse effect we caused

yeah man that 1C increase over two centuries is really the worst thing ever

[Anonymous No.10608507]

>>10608479
Ok so you support cutting emissions by half and not exceeding that. I think that's fair.


>On the Earth the IPCC states that "a 'runaway greenhouse effect'—analogous to [that of] Venus—appears to have virtually no chance of being induced by anthropogenic activities."[2]


The earth will never have a climate similar to Venus everyone agrees. However warming does not need to be even close to that to cause irreparable damage to the ecosystem and human life and property.

[Anonymous No.10608517]

>>10608479
>whoever told you this was lying to you and not even the IPCC believes it

Never mentioned a runaway greenhouse effect occurring. I only mentioned positive feedback and the greenhouse effect. Wonder why you had to lie there.

>we should be re-foresting anyway but not because of some bullshit boogeyman scare story

Good idea, so when is the planetary holocaust or complete ban of meat starting so we can roll back land used for agriculture?

>yeah man that 1C increase over two centuries is really the worst thing ever

It’s already been almost 1 C, with most of the warming occuring since the 50’s. These small increases in temperature are enough to bleach reefs. It’ll be more than a little bit more than 1C by 2100. I love when people lie through their teeth.

[Anonymous No.10608522]

>>10608507
i don't support cutting anything, i'm in favor of stimulation biosequestration as an absolute last resort, but i don't think CO2 is a problem so i also don't care if it doesn't happen

[Anonymous No.10608532]

>>10608507
>warming does not need to be even close to that to cause irreparable damage to the ecosystem and human life and property.
you sound like you've been petrified by a scare story and are operating on fear rather than having a clear head about this. remember all the "irreparable damage" that the medieval warm period did to us? oh yeah, it was nothing. nothing happened.

[Anonymous No.10608553]

>>10608532
The IPCC has published lots of information that sadly makes excellent arguments that back up their positions with scientific evidence. I'll have to listen to them rather than you, sorry. As for the warm period I suggest you educate yourself, mean global temperature during the Medieval warm period was quite similar to mean global temperature during the early 20th century. Nothing compared to the serous rise in global temperature we're causing.

[Anonymous No.10608574]

>>10608553
they're a political lobby group and shakedown artists corrupting the scientific process to continue their fraudulent pyramid scheme to entrap gullible suckers

> the serous rise in global temperature we're causing.

it isn't warming, the data is being tampered with by NASA/NOAA

[Anonymous No.10608592]

>>10608574
And we're back to square one where you have to prove the existence of a vast intergovernmental public and private conspiracy. With no whistle blowers, no leaks no private scientists who can provide accurate alternative measurements, and create a new version of physics that explains how increasing greenhouse gasses doesn't cause warming.
Get back to me when you have all your evidence.

[Anonymous No.10608599]

>>10608592
just watch the OP video, that is literally what this thread is about

[Anonymous No.10608649]

>>10608599
>>10604564
>>10604567
>>10604636
>>10605296

[Anonymous No.10608726]

>>10608592
He can't get the evidence because the NASA death-squads have been assassinating everyone who tries to leak it.

[Anonymous No.10608739]

>>10608726
Makes sense, as I'm actually a NASA chatbot built to appear to own deniers with FACTS and LOGIC to keep the climate curtain pulled back.

[Anonymous No.10608777]

>>10608649
these posts are just saying "I agree with them manipulating the temperature record to prove warming exists"

[Anonymous No.10608791]

>>10608777
It's destroying the validity of his entire argument. If errors exist in the data they should be accounted for. He tries to prove errors don't exist but he completely fails at this, then hits you with cherrypicked graphs to try and show a cooling trend that doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.10609023]

>>10608441
So it hasn't happened... yet, but it's just expected to happen. Still, that wasn't what the discussion was about.

You said here >>10607653 "the opposite happened". But your studies does in fact confirm that yields have increased. The study is about projections, but you interpreted it as news.

[Anonymous No.10609036]

>>10609023
>We have already seen climate effects on yields in a number of areas, including Europe and southern Asia, since the last IPCC Assessment Report in 2007. Unfortunately, it is the populations in many tropical areas and the southern parts of Europe and North Africa who will pay a great price. These population groups - especially the poor - are the most vulnerable in terms of failing harvests, higher prices and malnutrition in the near future. This multi-faceted crisis will only increase pressure in other areas of the world to increase production, whilst basic living conditions in deprived areas further decrease.

[Anonymous No.10609118]

>>10608574
> the data is being tampered with by NASA/NOAA

>>/x/ already

[Anonymous No.10609183]

>>10609118
>believing in the climate change conspiracy theory

[Anonymous No.10609314]

>>10609183
>>/x/

[Anonymous No.10609332]

>>10609183
Please answer this question seriously anon because I'm curious.
Have you gotten most of your information about the climate change subject from youtube videos?

[Anonymous No.10609337]

>>10609332
no I get my information from members of the IPCC whom I know socially and they tell me what a great scam it is they are running and how profitable it is.

[Anonymous No.10609353]

>>/x/

[Anonymous No.10609379]

>>10609337
>Implying the NASA assassins wouldn't activate the implanted kill switches the second they told you

[Anonymous No.10609404]

>>10609337
Do you actually expect anyone to believe this?

[Anonymous No.10609415]

>>10609404
That's exactly what I say to them when I ask about climate change and they tell me it's worked so far. One wonders how long this will last.

[Anonymous No.10609420]

>>10609379
>Implying they aren't feeding that looser disinfo to poison the well.

[Anonymous No.10609825]

>>10607738

>it's not in my interests to have billions taken out of the economy

Green energy will give way more jobs than oil and coal.
Solar energy alone made twice as many jobs as oil and coal combined you fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.10609844]

>>10607460
Read the replies in this thread brainlet it was debunked within 2 minutes of this thread being up.

[Anonymous No.10609850]

>>10604567
Pure damage control.

[Anonymous No.10609860]

>>10605870
>correct
>just make it say what you want

[Anonymous No.10609863]

>>10606801
In the old world skepticism was the heart of science. Now suddenly “Science” is a conscious political entity with an agenda, and anything other than towing the party lines, and especially disagreeing, is paranormal.

[Anonymous No.10609902]

>>10609863
This has been studied for decades and decades. We have studied the thermodynamics and physics of it then measured results and saw that its 100% happening. Other agencies world wide have done the same and got the same conclusion. This is settled like it or not.

You want to be called skeptics because you feel you are special and have some special knowledge but in reality you are just brainlets who can't understand science and you fall for lobbiest politicians who aren't scientists saying that Gw is not an issue or brainlet youtubers because you are incapable of individual thinking.

[Anonymous No.10609973]

>>10609863
>denies scientific result because it's inconvenient for political ideology
>hurr duh scienz is politicul n I'm bein pursecooted

[Anonymous No.10610013]

>>10607435
ye, let's fucking abandon /sci/ and stick to /pol/ and /x/

[Anonymous No.10610025]

>>10609902
>science is never wrong

[Anonymous No.10610028]

>>10610025
>science is ever wrong
It's the best we have at the moment by definition it can't be wrong. Even things that were completely disproved was the best theory at the time (ie. the most correct one).

[Anonymous No.10610030]

This did it for me.
I don't even care about the numbers or the science anymore.
When you have a 16 year old Swedish girl who is the daughter of some low level reality TV tier celebrity spearheading your movement to the point where she is invited to talk with high rank politicians, get undue media coverage and all of a sudden a "climate emergency" is declared because a handful of hippies protested you know there's something incredibly fishy and very well orchestrated about all this.
Like you faggots aren't even trying to hide this is a political movement to justify introducing legislation and spending to tackle this "emergency". Seriously it's fucking ridiculous and no matter how many charts and data you throw my way I cannot in good faith trust you faggots anymore. You're down there with the LGBTXYZPOZ movement at this point and the "science" you produce is on par with their publications trying to convince us trannies and gay buttsex are just as normal as everyone else.

[Anonymous No.10610041]

>>10610030
>i was on the hedge about the consensus of the scientific community
>... until a little girl said something. THATS IT FUCK SCIENCE REEEEE
great thought process bro

[Anonymous No.10610043]

>>10610028
*most widely accepted and funded by the old dogmatic gatekeeper crones in the field

FTFY

[Anonymous No.10610044]

>>10610041
>until a little girl said something
No, what t really got me was the coordinated response towards said girl who should, by all metrics, be irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.10610046]

>>10610030
Go outside, have sex

[Anonymous No.10610049]

>>10610025
Did i say that?
Do you have better theories and a better methods brainlet? If so present it.

[Anonymous No.10610050]

>>10610044
normies like publicity stunts. but it actually is irrelevant. so just ignore normie publicity shit and make up your mind based on data and evidence instead of normie 24 hour news cycle shit

[Anonymous No.10610061]

>>10610044
>No, what it really got me was the coordinated response towards said girl who should, by all metrics, be irrelevant.

Hey everyone this anon believes the same shit flat earthers believes. That world wide governments are in some major conspirancy together with millions of people working together (which not even 1 motherfucker leaked info exposing the fact btw) to lie about the fact that Climate change is happening. Anon thought of this because some girl is spreading awareness so this must be a conspirancy set by almost all governments.

If your thought process works like this you must be rly fucking braindead.

[Anonymous No.10610064]

>>10610030
>No matter how many data, peer reviewed papers, scientific evidence, logic and facts you throw at me i wont change my political biased view of the world and you won't make me understand basic science that was studied longer than i exist.

[Anonymous No.10610065]

>>10610049
That's not how it works, it works by falsification, not through "better" theories.

[Anonymous No.10610068]

>>10610030
based and wokepilled

[Anonymous No.10610069]

>>10607960
This. Climate change will only affect poor people.
For the rest of us it is now just another delicious opportunity for enrichment.
If you aren't at least a single digit millionaire you deserve all the suffering that you will experience. You shouldn't exist in the first place.

[Anonymous No.10610070]

>>10610043
>implying science doesn't have peer review

[Anonymous No.10610075]

>>10610065
GW is based on the fundamental laws of thermodynamics, chemistry and physics. So if a brainlet says "hurr durr i dont believe it, the science is wrong" then it must mean he has another method and he is gonna change science as mankind knows it OR... he is just rly fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.10610082]

CHINA BAD! MAGA!

[Anonymous No.10610089]

What if I completely understand the science of global warming, but I just want society to suffer as much as possible?

[Anonymous No.10610104]

>>10610089
Then thats fine because you dont matter and you dont cause any real effect on society so no1 gives a shit desu.

Also the honk honk meme is so shiet

[Anonymous No.10610120]

>>10610089
Then ur trash

[Anonymous No.10610122]

>>10610075
No, it's based on your own ideology. Climate is driven by solar activity, not by CO2.

[Anonymous No.10610127]

>>10610122
>Climate is driven by solar activity, not by CO2.
Solar activity has been approaching a grand minimum for several decades yet warming is ongoing. So how exactly does solar activity drive the climate?

[Anonymous No.10610129]

>>10610104
>you dont matter
OH NOES I DON'T MATTER!
AND HE THINKS HE DOES!

Guess who is POTUS, bitch. Remember that time the politicians listened to you instead of people like me? Me neither, kek. And you know what? Trump will get reelected in 2020 and he will be there till 2024. And then you know what? Then a democrat will be elected, but not your PURE KIKE BERNIE. No, it will be one of the Wall St. friendly ones and you know what he will do? NOTHING. And then some time in the not so far future, the crops will fail and their will be water shortages and the panic will finally set in and there will be riots and then there will boots on the ground in the cities and then you know what will happen? All the bois will be there too, taking the opportunity to win back some power. Mass happenings. Then far off in the future, society will have fixed the climate, eventually. And you know who will be still sitting pretty? The same people who have decided not to act on climate change, today. The same rich people, their families will be massively richer then. Only peasants like you will suffer. And I will be there to witness it all. Cannot wait.

HONK HONK

[Anonymous No.10610131]

>>10610129
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.10610133]

>>10610120
Yeah I have been told that all of life. Then I decided the rest of society is trash and I'm about to light it on fire.

[Anonymous No.10610164]

>>10610129
Top kek

All of that is /pol/ shit tier. Good shit anon its a nice story.

[Anonymous No.10610170]

>>10610122

>No, it's based on your own ideology. Climate is driven by solar activity, not by CO2.

Kek what a brainlet cant even check the shit that he says

[Anonymous No.10610179]

>>10610133
have a nice life

[Anonymous No.10610180]

>>10610170
why does that plot look wrong to me (aside from the y-axis misspelling "temperature")

[Anonymous No.10610191]

>>10610170
>posting fake graphs

[Anonymous No.10610214]

not more fun that making libshit crazy with rage, by pretending to not understand simple concepts, desu

[Anonymous No.10610225]

imagine if climate change is real and we are just being little shits by constantly questioning it...
now wouldn't that be infuriating...
I can just imagine being a greenie libshit trying to save the world while some dumbass here is repeatedly questioning your graphs...

[Anonymous No.10610228]

>>10610214

[Anonymous No.10610230]

>>10610228
It doesn't matter what you think of me.
What matters is that the world is going to burn and you are powerless to stop it.

[Anonymous No.10610241]

>>10610230
Ever read the book "A Clockwork Orange"?

[Anonymous No.10610254]

>>10604665

This isn't facebook, faggot. This is an imageboard, either post a link, post text, or post an image or fuck off.

[Anonymous No.10610256]

>>10604346
>t. cantonese basket-weaving forum user

[Anonymous No.10610280]

>>10609850
>everything I don’t like is damage control: the /pol/ack’s guide to internet discussion

[Anonymous No.10610297]

>>10604779

> when he specifically says in his videos that the data he uses comes directly from the agencies themselves.

This does not preclude cherrypicking, just how stupid are you?

[Anonymous No.10610316]

Lol at all you retards ITT that think that climate change denial is real.
Do you understand the concept of trolling?
Clearly not.
Protip: nobody who browses /sci/ is a genuine climate change denier; they are all having a laugh at how gullible you are

[Anonymous No.10610321]

>>10610316

Pretending to be retarded is the same as being retarded.

[Anonymous No.10610324]

>>10610321
Not really. A big part of the "optics" operation is to give the impression that climate change denial is very popular. This then helps convince third party lurkers that it is OK to be a climate change denier, if they are already inclined to be one due to being on that side of the political fence.
Learn the game, before calling others a tard.

[Anonymous No.10610335]

>>10610180
>>10610191
Dunno why its like that but when it comes to solar activity driving temperature you are just wrong. We know for 35 years the sun has a cooling trend. Thats such a ridiculous point you are making.

https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

[Anonymous No.10610337]

>>10610316
This post isn't true, I genuinely think it's bullshit and there are plenty of credentialed respectable scientists who agree.

[Anonymous No.10610340]

>>10610335
>posting fake graphs

[Anonymous No.10610341]

>>10610337
Prove that you are a climate change denier then.

[Anonymous No.10610343]

I'm with Freeman Dyson. If he says we shouldn't worry, then we shouldn't fucking worry.

[Anonymous No.10610347]

>>10610340
Its from NASA retard.

Prove to me NASA faked it. Give me evidence.

[Anonymous No.10610355]

>>10610343
Funny how you can never find a climatologist that agrees with you.
It's always somebody who is not actually involved in the field.

[Anonymous No.10610363]

>>10610355
Uh, there's plenty of climatologists who are clearly on the denial side. Richard Lindzen comes to mind. Or Willie Soon.

However I still trust Dyson more than everyone else. He's insanely smart.

[Anonymous No.10610372]

>>10610363
>However I still trust Dyson more than everyone else. He's insanely smart.

That doesn't make any sense. Doesn't matter how smart you are. You are either working in the field or you aren't.
Edward Witten is smart as fuck, much more than Dyson for sure, but I would not trust his opinion on climate change.

[Anonymous No.10610373]

>>10610372
Yes but see that's your problem, not mine.

[Anonymous No.10610375]

>>10610373
What "problem" is mine?

[Anonymous No.10610377]

>>10610375
Not believing Freeman Dyson when he says that
a) all climate models are laughably wrong
b) CO2 will do us more good than harm
c) there's literally nothing to worry about

[Anonymous No.10610384]

Cancer doesn't exist.

Expert consensus doesn't make truth.
There's a cancer lobby profiting from coming up with anti-cancer treatments.
Empirical data on the subject is filtered by medical professionals working in the field, and therefore unreliable.
I can come up with an ad hoc explanation to every counterpoint you make.

Prove me wrong.

[Anonymous No.10610391]

>>10610377
I don't think that is a problem.

[Anonymous No.10610417]

>>10610377
>believing instead of thinking
http://init.planet3.org/2007/08/dyson-exegesis.html

[Anonymous No.10610436]

>>10610417
Dyson vs literally who

[Anonymous No.10610452]

>>10610436
>Dyson vs facts and reason
ftfy

[Anonymous No.10610455]

>>10610050

Nice. Deniers are boomer-tier trolls/morons

[Anonymous No.10610458]

>>10610452
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgVByPTl1xA

Here's an actual climate scientist with decades of professional experience

[Anonymous No.10610463]

>>10610452
Dyson is one of the grand-daddies of QM. He's more intelligent than me, you, the guy you linked, and probably 98.9% of the people at the university you go to

[Anonymous No.10610472]

>Dyson agrees that anthropogenic global warming exists and that one of its main causes is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from the burning of fossil fuels.[55

>Dyson's views on global warming have been criticized.[21] In reply, he notes that "[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it's rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have."[62]

>I'm not saying the warming doesn't cause problems; obviously it does. Obviously we should be trying to understand it. I'm saying that the problems are being grossly exaggerated. They take away money and attention from other problems that are much more urgent and important. Poverty, infectious diseases, public education and public health. Not to mention the preservation of living creatures on land and in the oceans.[64]

Ah so you agree with Dyson and understand that AGW is absolutely real and caused by human emitted CO2

[Anonymous No.10610475]

>>10610472
Yep, I agree with everything in that quote.

[Anonymous No.10610478]

>>10610475
nice, glad we don't have to argue about climate change being caused by human emitted CO2, and that it will cause serious problems, and that Dyson does not object with the technical facts which he is not an expert, but he disagrees with certain political aspects.

[Anonymous No.10610480]

>>10610472
He sounds like such a whiny bitch.
He admits ignorance yet still feels the need to complain that others are respecting his admitted ignorant opinions.

[Anonymous No.10610483]

>>10610463
Protip: being intelligent does not make you an expert on everything.

[Anonymous No.10610485]

>>10610478
The thing I disagree with is the
>only 12 years until the world ends!!
meme

We probably have until the year 2500 or even 3000 before we see major changes due to AGW

>>10610480
No, you sound like a whiny bitch. Dyson has achieved everything in life that you wish you could. Go cry in a corner now.

[Anonymous No.10610491]

>>10610483
It kinda does

[Anonymous No.10610496]

>>10610491
Go back to your IQ threads

[Anonymous No.10610500]

Climate change is inherently political. As long as it is a political issue, it is going to get "denied", no matter how much facts, reason and science you throw at people.
Try to empathize. If I was a die-hard Libertarian because of unrelated issues (small government, for example), and you told me facts and science contradict my ideology, I'm going to say, "fuck facts and science" and start seeing you as an enemy.
Not because I necessarily reject the science, but because I see it as being incompatible with my political ideology, and I care more about my other positions than I care about your pet issue.
Everyone has a pet issue, and if my pet issue is not climate change, then I'm just going to ignore it or deny it.

Basically we are just too stupid as a society to deal with climate change.

[Anonymous No.10610502]

>>10610496
IQ is not equivalent to intelligence, IQ is a measure of one particular type of intelligence. It's quite irrelevant actually

[Anonymous No.10610503]

>>10610485
I can't say I agree with you as all the science which Dyson himself agrees with shows that there will be serious damage to the ecosystem, the economy and property in general. But you can believe whatever you want.

[Anonymous No.10610504]

>>10610485
>We probably have until the year 2500 or even 3000 before we see major changes due to AGW
The affects are already present today.
Everyone with eyes and memory can verify this.

[Anonymous No.10610507]

>>10610504
Oh really? Tell me how exactly humans can, using only their senses, perceive an uptick of 2 degree Celsius in the global average temperature?

An absurd proposition if I've ever seen one.

[Anonymous No.10610510]

>>10610500
Reducing the effects of climate change doesn't need the world to go full communist or anything. We just need to tackle it the exact same way the EPA handled air and water pollution before. The only people that can't accept this are the ANCAP wannabe retards.

[Anonymous No.10610511]

>>10610485
Why so angry, all of a sudden?
I thought you loved being contrarian and pretending that everyone else is wrong. Why so insecure all of a sudden?

[Anonymous No.10610515]

>>10610507
If you are older than ~24 you can just witness the seasons drastically changing.

[Anonymous No.10610520]

>>10610515
Bullshit. Absolute, self-important, deluded bullshit. Tell me exactly how you can perceive this shit?

There's been extreme weather events since time immemorial. So how exactly you correlate season change to climate change is anyone's wild guess. Probably a hallucination induced by mass hysteria. Because I sure as fuck can't see the reason behind it.

[Anonymous No.10610521]

>>10610510
No we don't need to go full communist but we need to implement policies that will be opposed by basically all of the political establishment.
That is why it is so hard.

[Anonymous No.10610529]

>>10610520
Next, you will tell me that you know my name better than I do.
How about this: stop denying reality.
Actually, stop PRETENDING to deny reality.
Because you have eyes and a brain and memory and you can observe the seasons changing just as much as anyone else.

[Anonymous No.10610534]

>>10610529
You didn't actually answer my question. Which is very simple. How does a human, using only his senses, perceive a change in the global average temperature of Earth?

[Anonymous No.10610557]

If the libshits are wrong about Jesus, and the gays and the niggers, then they must also be wrong about

[Anonymous No.10610560]

>>10610534
By remembering and keeping track of season patterns and realizing that they are changing.

[Anonymous No.10610572]

>>10610560
Again, this is total bullshit and lack of understanding of the natural system on your part.

If I put you in 1945 in US, you would make the same invalid and uninformed complaints because you would think you can "see" the weather changing. It's extremely narrow minded thinking to feel that your senses on what's happening in your immediate surrounding can give you any sort of information about the global temperature change. It's confirmation bias and that's all it is.

[Anonymous No.10610584]

>>10610572
With enough travel and over a long enough period it's actually possible as you could observe and remember things on a global scale. It's a fun thought experiment, but utterly pointless. We have instruments, weather stations, satellites crop yields etc for a reason.

[Anonymous No.10610590]

>>10610584
I have no idea how you justify claiming that you can observe a global change in temperature in the range of 1-2 degrees when the natural variability of temperature in any given region has a range of 30-100 degrees. And claiming it's due to weather related disaster is also quite ridiculous given that natural disasters are always happening.

[Anonymous No.10610606]

as long as climate change remains a far-left talking point, I will keep denying it; get my party on board and I will gladly follow

[Anonymous No.10610607]

>>10610590
You don't understand the difference between Mean global temperature and day to day local temperature do you? You also have your units confused.

[Anonymous No.10610610]

>>10610030
You can divorce the science from the politics faggotry

[Anonymous No.10610612]

>>10610606
Such a free thinking individual.

[Anonymous No.10610623]

>>10610607
You still haven't answered my question. You just keep distracting from it.

How can you claim that you can see the effects of climate change using your own senses?

[Anonymous No.10610626]

>>10610612
you do the same with most issues, unless you somehow pretend to be an expert on everything
it is well known that everyone is red or blue because of a couple of issues, and then everything else, they just stand by whatever the party position is
I don't see what's wrong with that
I not an expert on most things

[Anonymous No.10610632]

>>10610610
you really cannot in this case
if the science is right, then many political positions held by a lot of people are incompatible with reality

[Anonymous No.10610640]

>>10610623
Just do a arctic/glacier tour every year EZ

[Anonymous No.10610643]

>>10610640
Lol, and that tells you what?

[Anonymous No.10610649]

>>10610643
Ice melts due to higher temps, watching ice sheets and glaciers visibly recede over the years would tell you something.

[Anonymous No.10610657]

>>10610649
No it wouldn't. What kind of a ridiculous claim is that?

Do you seriously think you can extrapolate any sort of meaningful information from that? There are cycles that appear in nature, without taking every single one of those into consideration, your observations are worth exactly jack shit.

[Anonymous No.10610661]

>>10610657
At this point I think this is the dumbest argument I've had about climate change and that includes the guy who thinks NASA murders anyone who leaks climate data.

[Anonymous No.10610662]

>>10610643
If I write a mathematical proof and you do not understand it, is the proof necessarily wrong?

[Anonymous No.10610668]

>>10610657
Congratulations you've observed that all observations about climate that aren't utilizing the scientific method should be examined scientifically. Guess who makes the vast majority of unscientific claims about climate.

[Anonymous No.10610673]

>>10610661
>>10610662
You guys keep backpeddaling on the argument. Someone made a claim that if you're over 24 years old, you can observe the effects of climate change with your own eyes (senses). I find that claim ridiculous, so until someone provides a satisfactory answer I'll continue thinking you have no clue as to what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.10610674]

if alarmism isn't a religion then why is it so important that everyone have to believe in it? you can fix this shit with sulphur dioxide aerosol injections, with iron fertilization, with direct air capture and with biomass sequestration. you don't need 99% of people to believe in something in order to do these things, you just need to do them on your own and leave everyone else the fuck alone instead of trying to evangelize it. normal people do not need to give a shit about this.

[Anonymous No.10610675]

>>10610673
You find it ridiculous that a person can remember what seasons used to be like in the late 1990s?

[Anonymous No.10610678]

>>10610674
Because democracy is system that requires public support to do anything

[Anonymous No.10610679]

>>10610674
CO2 emissions globally need to cease by somewhere between 2030-2050.
Everything you list is not a solution by itself.

[Anonymous No.10610685]

>>10610673
I get your point, anecdotal evidence is always untrustworthy and peer reviewed scientific observations should be the basis of action.

[Anonymous No.10610686]

>>10610675
Again, if I plop you into 1940 or 1970, how exactly are the current weather patterns any different so you'd be able to see the difference with your own eyes?

[Anonymous No.10610692]

>>10610679
no they don't we can sequester it via the techniques we just listed. they do not need to come down and there is no reason to suggest that this should be forcibly implemented on people against their will.

>global emissions need to cease

you want what fucking army?

[Anonymous No.10610694]

>>10610678
you don't need public support you just need sovereign support. nobody would give a shit if private interests were funding direct air capture plants. you don't need public approval to do this.

[Anonymous No.10610696]

>>10610692
If you can provide evidence of means to sequester over 40 billion tons of CO2 annually please provide it.

[Anonymous No.10610699]

>>10610694
Who's going to pay for it? How are you going to make it profitable?

[Anonymous No.10610701]

>>10610686
My father was born in 1947 and has constantly been bitching about the changing climate since ~2010.
He is not educated and knows nothing about climate change.
He is just acutely aware of seasonal patterns because he farms the land all year round.
>how exactly are the current weather patterns any different
For the northern latitude, in a formerly temperate climate, the summer is much longer, creeping into both the spring and the autumn. The winters are milder, but with a higher frequency of cold spells. Heat waves during the summer last much longer and the average temperature is higher.
But the worst of it, is the unpredictability. Seasons used to have semi predictable weather. Now it is much less so. Snow, ice, rain, heat and drought are all happening with increasing frequency out of season.

[Anonymous No.10610705]

>>10610692
>>10610694
So we have moved on to the next step of denial.
Now you claim there is a magical solution that we are just not using, just because?

[Anonymous No.10610770]

>>10610699
1) this is YOUR project, because you supposedly believe in this shit, not me.
2) it won't be profitable at all, it will require you fucking idiots who care about this non-issue to find money from private investors. nobody is stopping you and it becomes clear at this point that you people only believe in it as a pretext to steal everyone's taxes which is evil.

>>10610705
i don't believe in it, i'm just saying if it was real it wouldn't be a problem because you can easily solve it. the question then becomes why you people aren't trying to solve it and instead are just trying to steal everyone's taxes

[Anonymous No.10610828]

>>10610770
It's OK we all know that you do believe in climate change and you are only "denying" it because of your incompatible political ideology.

[Anonymous No.10610841]

>>10610632
That is not inconsistent with what i said. Political activists might be brainlet ideologues but that has no bearing on the science.

[Anonymous No.10610853]

>>10610841
yes, but do you seriously expect people to be intellectually honest?

of course they are going to pretend that the science is wrong, if the science makes them uncomfortable.

[Anonymous No.10611179]

>>10604257
Of course the man made global warming is a hoax. Every real scientist knows that.

[Anonymous No.10611221]

>>10611179
Yeah at first it was fun having a bit of sun here in the UK. But shit is getting old really quick now.
Not prepared for another long hot summer.

[Anonymous No.10611389]

>>10607691
Nice blog post (I’m op btw)

[Anonymous No.10611457]

>>10609860
it was objectively incorrect

[Anonymous No.10611492]

>>10609860
Yeah and what they wanted was more accurate climate data and that's what they got.

[Anonymous No.10612030]

>>10607488
What is this from?

[Anonymous No.10612078]

>>10612030
>The climate lobby: a sectoral analysis of lobbying spending on climate change in the USA, 2000 to 2016
I would link it but the dumbass filter thinks it's spam

[Anonymous No.10612092]

>>10612078
Thanks