[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 23 KB, 288x288, eclipse.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11242948 No.11242948[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

/sci/ absolutely btfo
https://electroverse.net/newly-published-scientific-paper-tears-global-warming-and-the-ipcc-to-shreds/

>> No.11242977

>that image
OH MY GOD GO THE FUCK BACK TO /POL/ YOU FUCKING RACIST!
>>>/pol/
>>>/pol/
>>>/pol/
FUCK OFF!
fascism will not be tolerated here

>> No.11242986

>>11242977
>muh racism
yikes

>> No.11243000
File: 26 KB, 287x431, hoesmad.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11243000

>>11242977

>> No.11243055
File: 6 KB, 210x240, soyboy.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11243055

>>11242977
1) There is nothing racist or fascist about red ice

2) If someone wants to b racist or fascist it is none of your business you can suck their ass

3) You have zero say on who can and can't post here or what they post

4) fuck off to wherever you came from soi cuck

>> No.11243058

>>11242977
Kill yourself faggot commie

>> No.11243061

>>11242948
This is why its a scam

"A major blow to IPCC credibility came on October 19, 2009 when thousands of documents and emails were leaked out by some computer hackers from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of UK’s East Anglia University. This leak came to be unimaginatively known as Climate Gate.

The documents reveal misconduct of the top IPCC climate scientists in the UK and USA in creating manufactured data about the release of carbon dioxide through burning of fossil fuels and industries causing global warming. Some of the US governmental agencies like US National Climate Data Centre and NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies were also involved in data manipulation."

>> No.11243063

>>11242948
Only retards believe climate change is man made hence why they changed up from calling it global warming to the scientific term of natural earth cycles.

"Earth’s climate system consists of several interactive components — lithosphere (rocks), hydrosphere (water), cryosphere (sphere of ice), biosphere (living organism) and atmosphere (sphere of air). There are several subsystems of these spheres which interact and develop a complex system of climate system of the earth. Therefore, any forecast of climate system based upon selected parameters of stimulated computer model as used by IPCC for future projection and estimation can never give a real and correct picture of global warming/climate change."

>> No.11243064

>>11242977
based tranny

>> No.11243074

>>11243061
>The documents reveal misconduct of the top IPCC climate scientists in the UK and USA
Let's see the emails.

>> No.11243078

>>11243063
>Only retards believe climate change is man made hence why they changed up from calling it global warming
False.

https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm

>to the scientific term of natural earth cycles.
Which natural cycle is current warming part of?

>Therefore, any forecast of climate system based upon selected parameters of stimulated computer model as used by IPCC for future projection and estimation can never give a real and correct picture of global warming/climate change.
Doesn't follow. Complex doesn't mean chaotic.

>> No.11243082
File: 48 KB, 645x729, 8d6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11243082

>>11242977
>>11242986
>>11243000
>>11243055
>>11243058
>>11243064
>false flagging this hard

>> No.11243098

Parts of it are real and parts of it are a massive con job to trick people into a global government.
same with communism

>> No.11243110

>>11243098
Which parts?

>> No.11243120

>>11243082
wtf you on about false flagging, you mean samefagging you discord tranny? gtfo our board

>> No.11243121

>>11243110
it's hard to tell, but it helps to look at what nonsense the puppets regurgitate for their masters and then compare it to what the science actually says and try to piece out the agenda bias.

>> No.11243124

>>11243120
This post is a false flag >>11242977

The posts resulting to it are either retards who can't see the incites bait or arein on it. Neither require samefagging.

>> No.11243126

>>11243121
The science actually says current global warming is real, primarily caused by man and very harmful to the ecosystems and infrastructure humans rely on. So I guess we're in agreement.

>> No.11243137

>>11243126
yet there is still a bias distortion
it's obviously quite pronounced from the fossil fuels lobby but there is a control agenda in there on the other side

>> No.11243142

>>11243124
anon 18 posts from 7 IPs and it was 12 from 5 before

>> No.11243143

>>11243142
And?

>> No.11243145
File: 184 KB, 642x933, 1576499334832.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11243145

>>11242948
Fuck off nazitard. Fuck you motherfucker. We don't want you racist climate deniers here.

>> No.11243147

>>11243137
If there is a control agenda why is nothing actually being done? Most people have been convinced enough to support a carbon tax yet no carbon tax has been passed. Pretty shitty conspiracy theory.

>> No.11243151

>>11243145
Wow such an intelligent false flag, truly indistinguishable from a real post.

>> No.11243153

>>11242977
>>11243145
>>>/pol/

>>11242948
>>>/x/

>> No.11243155
File: 250 KB, 1312x1312, 1576467378476.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11243155

>>11243151
fuck off nazi Bastard

>> No.11243159
File: 271 KB, 1243x650, 1576453344337.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11243159

>>11243153
the poltard larping as a leftist larping as a poltard has showed up!!

>> No.11243168

>>11242977
False flag/shitty bait post

>> No.11243193

>>11243147
if that were true then why do their puppets exist.

>> No.11243199

>>11243193
What puppets?

>> No.11243211

>>11242948
is OP a climate hysteric who is trying to sabotage the climate realists? that article is cringy as fuck, full of typos and meaningless

>> No.11243213

>>11243211
>that article
before someone misunderstands me, I am talking about the research article, not the blog linked in the OP that talks about the research article

>> No.11243225
File: 318 KB, 952x717, teslabrain.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11243225

>>11242948
>electroverse(.)net
>>>/x/

>> No.11243235

>>11243213
>research article
LOL that is not a research article, it has no more scientific content than the blog post. Did you even read it?

>> No.11243245

>>11242948
>Electroverse

Yikes

>> No.11243452

>>11243078
What's that website going to say when they start calling it climate crisis? Will they pretend we always called it that too and hope their readers just shut their brains off and agree again?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_crisis

>> No.11243491

>>11243145
>>11243153

suck taint trannies

>> No.11243498

>>11243452
>pretend we always called it that too
There are papers from literally 60 years ago referring to climate change you stupid oil shill
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x

>> No.11243500

holy shit Mossad and CIA are busy this morning, get a life you glow faggots

>> No.11243516

>>11243498
On global cooling rofl? There sure was, . Newsweek, Time, The New York Times and National Geographic published articles at the time speculating on the causes of the unusual cold and about a new ice age was coming which this gay fake news website you trannies keep using lies about rofl

https://skepticalscience.com/70s-cooling-myth-tricks-part-I.html

>> No.11243526
File: 1.47 MB, 236x250, reaction-negative-disapproval-mild_61.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11243526

>>11243516
>On global cooling
No, climate change. Did you even read the paper I linked or my post?
>The New York Times and National Geographic published articles at the time speculating on the causes of the unusual cold and about a new ice age was coming
Not scientific journals/papers.
>gay fake news
>trannies
>>>/pol/

>> No.11243533

>>11243526
kys tranny th jig is up, you lose

>> No.11243534

>>11243533
Go back.

>> No.11243539

>>11243452
Who cares if people start calling it a climate crisis? You claimed the name was "changed" as some kind of plot. You're so focused on semantics you forgot to make an argument.

>> No.11243540
File: 159 KB, 600x540, 1496467221648.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11243540

>>11243534

>> No.11243547

>>11243540
Go back.

>> No.11243555
File: 76 KB, 419x449, cat.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11243555

>>11243547

>> No.11243561
File: 77 KB, 645x729, y2uNb2I.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11243561

>>11243516
>disproves own argument with link
It seems like the deniers on /sci/ are getting dumber. I guess the smarter, less mentally ill ones have given up already.

>> No.11243562

>>11243155
lol @ that cringe, go back to discord tranny

>> No.11243565
File: 349 KB, 850x446, kikeArgument.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11243565

>>11243561
>pilpulling this hard and obvious

>> No.11243570

>>11243565
Keep proving me right with every post.

>> No.11243655

>>11243565
ironically ol' adolf might as well be talking about you, you retard denier cucks get BTFO literally every thread but you still come crawling back day after day

>> No.11243744

>>11243498
Your paper makes a distinction between climate change and the so called 20th century warming anomaly it refers to as "temperature rise during the present century".. You are deliberately pretending they used these phrases interchangeably 60 years ago. And you have the nerve to call me the shill...
The climate is always changing. To deny that is like denying gravity. That's why you can find the phrase "climate change" 60 years ago. Not because they paradoxically were using the term for a natural occurance to describe an "unnatural" one... Would anyone ever call the 1930s great depression "economy change?" Hey guys we need to ensure we dont experience "economy change," we need to teach children about how dangerous "economy change" is (that is the analogous spelling, climate is a noun)... what dumbass would say that? Nobody, they call it a depression.

They only started calling the "anomaly" climate change recently so anytime it snows too much or too little, or anytime it rains too much or too little, or anytime theres too many hurricanes (they never care if theres too few, soooooo strange) they call it climate change because they want people to associate bad change with climate change. But that doesnt scare children fast enough so they want to call it climate crisis now.

>>11243539
I implied that, not claimed. You should learn what words mean. But yes it was, and is about to be again, changed as a plot to scare people and associate natural but rare events with the end of the world narrative. Read above.

>> No.11243751
File: 1.65 MB, 500x208, collector.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11243751

>>11243655
>>11243570

>> No.11243800

>>11243120
>our board

>> No.11243803

>>11243744
you dumb fucking shill is your entire strategy just hoping no one will call you out on your bullshit and ouright lies?
> The extra CO2 released into the atmosphere by industrial processes and other human activities may have caused the temperature rise during the present century. In contrast with other theories of climate, the CO2 theory predicts that this warming trend will continue, at least for several centuries.

>> No.11243824
File: 6 KB, 239x249, 1539315297161s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11243824

>>11243744
>You are deliberately pretending they used these phrases interchangeably 60 years ago.
When did I pretend this? Can you quote me? Who says they're used interchangably today by climate scientists? Global Warming ≠ Climate Change
>The climate is always changing
And? Doesn't mean the current rapid change isn't human caused.
>That's why you can find the phrase "climate change" 60 years ago
Are you implying that humanity wasn't blasting out carbon emissions until the 50s?
>They only started calling the "anomaly" climate change recently
No, the term has been in use for decades.
>anytime it snows too much or too little, or anytime it rains too much or too little, or anytime theres too many hurricanes they call it climate change
Who does? Scientists or media pundits?
>they never care if theres too few, soooooo strange
Again who is "they"? Of course the media isn't going to mention a lack of hurricanes, media generally focuses on negative news.
>they want people to associate bad change with climate change
The current changes caused by human carbon emissions are having a negative impact on the overall climate though.
>that doesnt scare children fast enough so they want to call it climate crisis now.
The fact that you're obsessing over valid terminologies so much instead of criticising the actual science behind them leads me to believe that you don't have any actual valid criticisms of current climate science and are just spouting denier talking points.

>> No.11243842

>>11243526
>No, climate change. Did you even read the paper I linked or my post?
Your link references "climatic" change not "climate" change. Climatic change is not interchangeable with global warming (or cooling rofl) they are separate concepts. Climate change is the specific phrase created for APGW, those are interchangeable. You're both wrong. Did you even read it guy?

>> No.11243970

>>11243824
>When did I pretend this? Can you quote me
>huur duur I didn't verbatim say the word pretend gotcha!!
The Discussion was changing the alarmist catchphrase from global warming to climate change to climate crisis. U posted a link showing climate change was used 60 years ago ( it says climatic change btw, you cant even read). It would be very moronic of you to post that link if you were not also implying (pretending) the phrases always were referring to the same concept and could be used interchangeably. Why did u post it if u now deny the terms mean the same thing?

>Who does? Scientists or media pundits?
Alarmists, so both. What a stupid question. Your whole post is basically hurt duur proof it.
https://www.ucsusa.org/climate/impacts
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=%22climate+change+is+causing+increased%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,47

There is nothing wrong with climate change. Deny this.

>The fact that you're obsessing over valid terminologies so much instead of criticising the actual science behind them leads me to believe that you don't have any actual valid criticisms of current climate science and are just spouting denier talking points
Thinking I or anyone cares about your opinion this hard leads me to believe your parents ignored you too much as a child.

>>11243803
The discussion revolved around changing the narrative's phrase from global warming to climate change. Try to keep up sweety.

>No, the term has been in use for decades.
My mistake I forgot to assume you're probably a teenager. "Recently" to me means it changed full swing around the late 90s. A very irrelevant thing to cherry pick but hey quantity over quality is just clearly your style.

https://www.ucsusa.org/climate/impacts

>> No.11244019

>science is now politics
the very reason science has been superior is that it's always been apolitical

>> No.11244027

>>11243970
>changing the alarmist catchphrase from global warming to climate change
Neither of those are catchphrases, they're terms referring to scientific concepts and are not used interchangeably by climate scientists.
>it says climatic change btw
No shit, it's still referring to the same concept and is practically the same term.
>the phrases always were referring to the same concept
Which phrases?
>https://www.ucsusa.org/climate/impacts
Doesn't reference any scientific papers
>https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=%22climate+change+is+causing+increased%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,47
Doesn't support your original point.
>There is nothing wrong with climate change
Thinking I or anyone cares about your opinion this hard leads me to believe your parents ignored you too much as a child.

>> No.11244029

>>11243970
>changing the narrative's phrase from global warming to climate change.
The "phrase" was never "changed". Both terms are still in use and mean different things.

>> No.11244030

>>11242977
kek the fact so many took the bait only goes to show how many newfags there really are.

>> No.11244039

>>11243565
damn, I just might read it after this quote

>> No.11244051
File: 1.26 MB, 200x150, 1575626746320.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11244051

>>11244019
>science is apolitical

Maybe in textbooks.

>> No.11244153

>>11243235
it is called a research article thats why I clarify. in my first post I wrote only article

>> No.11244193

>>11243074
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf

>> No.11244264

>>11244027
>No shit, it's still referring to the same concept and is practically the same term.
Oh hurts when people point out you cant read huh? "Practically" the same is an adorable cope.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C47&q=%22climatic+change%22&btnG=

They stopped using the phrase in the mid 1990s like I said when they were forming the more cohesive narrative catchphrase of today. Why oh why did they do that if they mean the same thing???

Because climatic/climate meanings are different to them. Ones the gramatically corect natural occurance and one is a catchphrase

>Which phrases?
catchphrases you literally just referred to mr Goldfish memory

>Doesn't reference any scientific papers
Weak goalpost move. You said scientists saying that and I gave you a site made by scientists saying that.

>Doesnt support your original point
Pathetic goalpost move. Now I am giving scientific papers that say that.

And of course it supports my original point. All those papers could seemlessly replace CC with global warming and it would mean the same thing. Its undeniable and would have passed peer review no problem. I'm sorry if youre so dense that they need to spell out "we are substituting our catchphrases" before you cant realize they mean the same thing in the context theye using.

But hold up, are you now implying global warming is NOT a type of climate change??? If u answer no then the term can be used interchangeably just like I said and I'm right. If you say yes then anthropogenic CC isnt happening.... no chance in hell I'll get a straight answer

>Thinking I or anyone cares about your opinion
Duh. I was illustrating a point that alarmists would not confront that statement directly because it would illustrate how you interchange the terminology. Bravo, you pretictably did EXACTLY the pawn move I expected. that was the only reason I wrote that out of place sentence.
In reality alarmists cringe at that statement bc they interchanged GW with CC

>> No.11244277

>>11244029
I understand most alarmists are in denial. Repeating their stance is not an argument and accomplishes nothing. Ive addressed your misconception. Follow the comment chain and come up with new material or dont bother.

>> No.11244280

>>11244019
Science is not apolitical, people trust it quite a lot so there will always be interest in framing scientific findings, or directing scientific research towards politically viable findings. But science is also something of a double-edged sword for politicians so you never see them actually argue "scientifically" as scientists do, only vaguely reference scientific findings and hope the listener is as informed or less than they are. Numbers and graphs and errorbars, arguments and proofs introduce a level of accountability that is anathema to modern political discourse. You want to appeal to an audience, not actually convince anyone decisively.

>> No.11244354

>>11243061
>>11244193
>muh climategate
https://youtu.be/7nnVQ2fROOg

>> No.11244369
File: 84 KB, 1903x966, another_fake_journal.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11244369

>>11242948
>>11242977
>>11242986
>>11243000
>>11243055
>>11243058
>>11243061
>>11243063
>>11243064
>>11243074
>>11243078
>>11243082
>>11243098
>>11243110
>>11243120
>>11243121
>>11243124
>>11243126
>>11243137
>>11243142
>>11243143
>>11243145
>>11243147
>>11243151
>>11243153
>>11243155
>>11243159
>>11243168
>>11243193
>>11243199
>>11243211
>>11243213
>>11243225
>>11243235
>>11243245
>>11243452
>>11243491
>>11243498
>>11243500
>>11243516
>>11243526
>>11243533
>>11243534
>>11243539
>>11243540
>>11243547
>>11243555
>>11243561
>>11243562
>>11243565
>>11243570
>>11243655
>>11243744
>>11243751
>>11243800
>>11243803
>>11243824
>>11243842
>>11243970
>>11244019
>>11244027
>>11244029
>>11244030
>>11244039
>>11244051
>>11244153
>>11244193
>>11244264
>>11244277
>>11244280
>>11244354
You all suck very badly at checking for junk science, just like Red Ice TV, and their shitty journalism.
The "journal" this is apparently published in:
>Aquatic Sciences and Oceanography
Doesn't exist, I just went and checked in on the Master Journal List (like you should have all done, straight away):
>https://mjl.clarivate.com/search-results
As it's sorted by relevancy, if this journal existed, it would be at the top as it would be the most relevant to the search parameters.
So now we know that it isn't worth a damn, and should be tossed in the trash, along with the rest of /pol/.
Make /sci/ great again!

>> No.11244377

>>11244264
>"Practically" the same is an adorable cope.
Not an argument.
>They stopped using the phrase in the mid 1990s
>Why oh why did they do that if they mean the same thing???
Are you seriously asking why language evolves over time?
>catchphrases you literally just referred to
I didn't mention any "catchphrases" in my post. Care to elaborate?
>Weak goalpost move
How so?
>a site made by scientists
pop-sci shit is irrelevant. Scientific papers are all that matters.
>Now I am giving scientific papers that say that.
Say what? Can you quote some papers?
>All those papers could seemlessly replace CC with global warming and it would mean the same thing.
No they couldn't. They are two terms referring to two different things and any climate scientist who actually knows what they're talking about won't mix up the two. How pop-sci pundits misrepresent the science is irrelevant.
>Its undeniable and would have passed peer review no problem
Show me an example of someone deliberately switching the terms and passing peer review twice.
>they mean the same thing in the context theye using
They don't though.
>are you now implying global warming is NOT a type of climate change
Global warming is a cause of climate change, not a subset of it.
>If u answer no then the term can be used interchangeably just like I said
I don't see how you arrived at this conclusion.
>If you say yes then anthropogenic CC isnt happening..
Again, your logic isn't adding up.
>it would illustrate how you interchange the terminology.
When have I interchanged the two terms?
>>11244277
Not an argument. You are mistakenly using your own ignorance on the two terms and their different meanings as some sort of evidence as two why the two terms are supposedly the same thing.

>> No.11244382

>>11244377
>pop-sci shit is irrelevant. Scientific papers are all that matters.
depends on the journal

>> No.11244383

>>11244377
>>11244382
Guys, the journal doesn't even exist, it is a non-paper, and therefore, non-proof.

>> No.11244386

>>11242948
I really, really hate Red Ice.
They say some based things, then just pile on the retardation. It makes me and other race realists and identitarians look bad by association.

>> No.11244389

>>11244386
They didn't even bother to check the provenance of the source.

>> No.11244390

>>11244383
Is your reading comprehension that poor anon? why are you picking a fight with me?
I said it depends on the journal, some journals are dog shit pay to publish.

>> No.11244396

The IPCC are not entirely blameless in their behaviour and history of agrandisement
and they do have an underhanded agenda

>> No.11244397
File: 21 KB, 819x641, really.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11244397

>>11244390
>Is your reading comprehension that poor anon?
Lmao, you want to start on ME? I'd rhetorically CRUSH you. I really wouldn't advise that.
>why are you picking a fight with me?
Anyway, now that we've got that unpleasantness out of the way, I am merely saying this whole thread is based upon "nothing". The argument you are having right now, would be best taken elsewhere, either to another thread, or perhaps an alternative service, like IRC.
So please, do not bump this junk thread, with junk science, it may spread disinformation.
Thank you.

>> No.11244445

>>11244386
red ice is based you are cringe

>>11244389
Who is "they" and what source? Did you think OP implied the source was red ice because of the pic? Are you literally retarded by chance? Using unusual words isn't going to hide it I am afraid

>> No.11244450

>>11244445
>Who is "they" and what source? Did you think OP implied the source was red ice because of the pic? Are you literally retarded by chance? Using unusual words isn't going to hide it I am afraid
You shouldn't have done that, you silly boy. Do you have any idea what you just UNLEASHED?
Okay, let's explore.
Red Ice is clearly the publisher of the article that links to the study, the study is the source, the provenance of that study is a journal, that journal doesn't exist: >>11244369
You would know that, if you actually read the thread, you mouth-breathing retard.

>> No.11244451

>>11244397
those are the only two posts I've made though?
I'm not engaged in this argument you are having only attempting to raise an issue with saying all papers are equal.

>> No.11244454

>>11244450
>Red Ice is clearly the publisher of the article that links to the study

Yep you are literally retarded no point in reading the rest