There is a census on consensus of athropogenic climate change which shows that on average, 97% of climate scientists agree that mankind is the main driver behind global warming.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-basic.htm
The more someone understands the science behind the case, the less room there is for denial
Non experts like to throw around non arguments like 'volcanoes spew more co2 than mankind', or 'our boreal forests make places like canada carbon negative', but these are invalid arguments.
The reality is that everyone around the world needs to vote for leaders that will address this problem head on, and efficiently, rather than denialists that will further drive mankind into the ground.
Apparently /pol/ doesn't have anything to say when facts are presented
>>76410227
The only solution is to stop the ones who pollute the most.
Genocide China and India.
>>76412906
Technically Canada pollutes the most, as the best measurement is per capita, with us leafs clocking in at 14000 tonnes per capita annually, the states being just behind us. China only clocks in 6000 roughly, but they just have 'more' emissions because they have a much larger population. North Americans are actually the worst polluters.
It's a global problem, not a nation to nation problem.
>>76410227
It's bullshit
>>76413323
There's still fuck all I can do about it.
>>76413420
Vote for policy makers that will rectify the problem, and spread the word to close the consensus gap in the public's eye, that's what you can do about it.
>>76413396
Nice sources and arguments to back up your well thought out claim
>>76413323
Yes, as you say it's a global problem, each country should take responsibility for his own emissions.
China is number 1 polluter and must be stopped
Europeans are the best ones, they pollute less and less each years, so, not my problem.
>>76413931
China IS working on their emissions, and have pledged to curb emissions before the paris agreement, as well as being part of the paris agreement.
It's still your duty educate the scientifically illiterate part of the populace, because it's literally everyone's problem
>>76413931
By the way, good job pastabro, you should be proud of your country
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJIN9sACqmw
Deniers have always had their Trump card.
>Okay
>I don't care
>Let it burn
>>76415884
>1 meteorologist makes shitty paper that overhauls thousands of climate science experts' findings
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2016/05/13/ecs-1k/
I'll trust the scientists who are actually in the field of climate science
>>76416187
Yep, if you exhaust all their 'arguments', it comes down to them admitting that they don't give a shit.
>>76416409
You mean those whose fucking job it is to affirm every baseless assumption regarding man made climate change or else they'd be out there looking for a new job?
Yeah, I trust them alright.
Science isn't a consensus.
>>76417406
CHRIST STOP SELF BUMPING YOUR THREAD ITS LIKE AT THE TOO OF CATALOG NOW
the 97% lies comes again. funny
97% of whom, of how many people... what exactly is a "climate scientist"?
The answer is out of 3000 servery only 77 responded.
Posting biased info graphics isn't proof nor does it follow the scientific method.
>>76416967
Lol you're a moron
>>76417075
But there's a consensus on the science
>>76416409
>climate scientists release papers proving that they need more funding to make more absurd projections so give them more money now or you hate science
That's not scientific at all.
Shouldn't several cities be completely underwater by now based on projections made 10 years ago?
>>76416899
No thanks, I'll keep doing what I want and when I want. Not changing my life for an unproven myth.
>>76417642
those "scientists" are less than a few hundred if that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c
>>76417642
You image implies 90% of scientists are climate change scientists.
Absolutely absurd.
90% of scientists just say they agree with it or face pushback.
There is not a single scientific thing about climate change projections based on theories that get proven wrong time after time again.
>>76417635
>http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-basic.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEb49cZYnsE
There's not just one census finding that 97% figure, there's 7 studies finding census anywhere from 90% to 100%, depending on how they quantify it.
Nice links to back up your claims by the way
>>76417908
>>76418007
Wrong, see:
>>76418087
>>76417737
>Sea levels are objectively rising
>Arctic ice is measurably depleting
>The last three years have been the hottest on record globally in the last 150 years
>Wildfires are getting bigger and starting earlier, lasting longer
>Coral reefs are bleaching and dying in greater numbers
>More people are dying from over heating every year
But because these occurrences aren't in PERFECT sync with the models, we should ignore them?
If you die from cancer in 10 weeks when your doctor said you should be dead within 8, would you say that he was wrong? Even though your hair is falling out and your muscle has vanished?
>>76417781
It's a fact, you're just uneducated and burying your head in the sand
>>76417642
>He thinks taxing human beings income will somehow convice the Sun to adjust itself to put out a constant invariable flow of radiation that magically has 0 effect on the Earths global climate.
Literal retards, the lot of you climate confirmers. Big Oil shilling for no climate change. Big Eco shilling for climate change. Both stand to make a fuck ton of money.
You have all that bullshit saved on your computer for nothing. Good luck buying all your stuff from a country that doesn't follow environmental regs, negating your climate zealotry completely.
>>76418918
>America is still triggered by being beat by Canadian soldiers
It's like you guys forgot losing wars to third world nations is your specialty.
>>76418918
>Never mentioned anything about taxes
>The sun has somehow magically had no effect on the synchronous rise and fall of temperatures and co2 until the last 150 years, when, coincidentally we started emitting more co2 than the earth naturally does
The sun is actually decreasing in activity and the temperature is still going up, so explain that one.
>>76410227
There was a consensus of the sun circling the earth 600 years ago, see how that turned out.
>>76411446
>Apparently /pol/ doesn't have anything to say when facts are presented
but i agree with it. there is nothing much to add.
P.S. hate my gov for planning to invest in coal plants. big minus.
>>76418918
And also, I saw someone argue that scientists were lying about big tobacco and how second hand smoke causes cancer, in order for them to make extra money off of the tobacco companies.
You can argue that both sides stand to make a profit off of a topic like this, but you're still fucking wrong.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
>>76419669
Yea, a consensus from religious figures, and the people pushing the raw data got persecuted.
Completely incompatible argument.
>>76419729
Thank you for your input, I agree that there is not much to add when you're on board.
I was just surprised that it took so long for the denialists to crawl out of the woodwork.
>government funded climate scientists agree that the government needs to spend more money on climate science
why did we let real life become Atlas Shrugged?
![icecover_current_new[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/fFZVeVL.png "icecover_current_new[1].png")
>>76420094
blue Arctic ocean event will hit the Northern Hemisphere like the fist of a god.
2016 or 2017 tops.
there will be no denial after that.
>>76420094
Because today scientists who don't agree with climate change are not prosecuted. Climate science is pretty much a religion, and it wants to sacrifice our industry to the global warming god.
>studies into scientific agreement
lower sun activity is pushing us into an ice age. Man-made global warming, if true, is a good thing because it will partially balance that out
>>76412018
Fuck solar. We have huge plains and few natural disasters. We need nuclear
>>76420480
they've been saying that for 10 years and every time it doesn't happen they change the date. By the time it actually happens, people will think it's happened 20 times already
>>76420221
But that's fucking wrong, on so many levels.
Do you even pay attention to our own politics?
Do you remember how Stephen Harper muzzled scientists so he could build Canada's economy with the oil sands?
There's not much need for further study on the subject when there's been a consensus for over twenty years, the scientists are just saying that the energy and manufacturing systems need to change or we will be screwed, and Harper kept them quiet so he could continue to make dat black gold dolla.
What you're saying would make more sense if the scientists were saying 'our studies are inconclusive, we need more funding to further understand this', but none of them are saying that.
All of them are saying 'we're fucked if we don't change course'.
Tell me, how are climate scientists going to benefit off of carbon tax that gets allocated into developing renewable energy systems?
>>76420094
Actually, religious figures supported Galileo, with a bishop actually writing a letter to him saying the scriptures could be reinterpreted. The issue is he had no fucking evidence against the scientific figures of his day.
all those leaves jacking eachother off, its disgusting
>>76420784
>Do you remember how Stephen Harper muzzled scientists so he could build Canada's economy with the oil sands?
and every other country kept dumping money down the pit
>There's not much need for further study on the subject when there's been a consensus for over twenty years
there is if every prediction they make is wrong
>the scientists are just saying that the energy and manufacturing systems need to change or we will be screwed, and Harper kept them quiet so he could continue to make dat black gold dolla.
one of the only things he did right in his entire tenure
>What you're saying would make more sense if the scientists were saying 'our studies are inconclusive, we need more funding to further understand this', but none of them are saying that.
All of them are saying 'we're fucked if we don't change course'.
as long as nothing is done, they'll keep getting money dumped on them so they say the controversial thing to keep the money train rolling
>Yes goy....
>...More government control is good for industry...look at healthcare.
>>76420510
>Because today scientists who don't agree with climate change are not prosecuted.
Of course they are, Marc Morano published private email accounts of climate scientists and actively pushed people to hassle them, they've received death threats.
>Climate science is pretty much a religion
>IT'S A RELIGION BECAUSE I SAID SO
You're stupid, educate yourself.
>>76420651
Why not both? I'm all for nuclear from what I've read.
>>76420582
The effects in 100 years from AGW will be harder to fix and prevent than the effects from the next natural ice age in 10 000 years. Learn to prioritize.
>>76420733
>India is a melted puddle and their shoes were melting on the pavement
>Islands in the pacific have literally disappeared from rising sea levels
>The arctic is getting smaller and smaller, no denying this
But we didn't die yet you guys, so everything's a-ok!
You think this is the leaf that always shills for obongo?
>>76421355
>every prediction is wrong but it'll happen eventually I swear
>>76419209
>Canadian "soldiers"
>>76419484
Explain what? That the sun does whatever the fuck it wants and its effect on the earth's global climate can't be quantified, especially with the rudimentary equipment we have in which to do it over such a short timeline (astronomically speaking)? Do you trust sun data from 60 years ago?
Seriously, you'd have to be an megalomaniac to think humans have the ability to stop mother nature.
Knock off the tobacco parallel shit, liberals do the same stuff with the gun control argument....like fuck off talking about cars, we're here to talk guns.
>>76418548
evidence of climate change != evidence of global warming
Out of your 3000 climatologists only 77 climate scientists were chosen to represent the 3000 and that was because of leading prequestions.
Evidence suggests the climate is changing, and that we are putting out co2 but it doesn't show the links between them. The people supporting anti-oil and green agendas are all oil producers looking to sabotage other oil producers by brainwashing the voting populace.
Also
>A FUCKING LEAF
>>76421267
>and every other country kept dumping money down the pit
And now we're in a massive recession cause OPEC decided to increase production, how's that massive unemployment working out for us?
Pretty sure there's more jobs in solar than coal now too, but hey, it's just a money pit right?
>there is if every prediction they make is wrong
And they aren't, so there is no need.
>one of the only things he did right in his entire tenure
Edgy
>as long as nothing is done, they'll keep getting money dumped on them so they say the controversial thing to keep the money train rolling
Scientists don't get payed to spout opinions, they get payed to create studies. They've already made their studies, so you're just plain wrong.
>>76421295
>Make obama one of the koch brothers
>Make the scientist James inhoffe
>"Sure I'll bring a snowball into congress for $300,000!"
Now it's accurate
>>76421135
Can you even read? There's a leaf in here denying AGW.
>>76410227
well thats neat but the data doesnt support that consensus of that grooup. how likely is someone who doesnt believe in man-driven climate change to become a climate scientist?
![Figure-3[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/xW9X1Cn.png "Figure-3[1].png")
>>76420733
>they've been saying that for 10 years and every time it doesn't happen they change the date. By the time it actually happens, people will think it's happened 20 times already
so you are saying that imagination is more important than reality?
shouldn't we talk about facts?
>>76412849
>actually being worried about a 1 degree C temp change
within the margin of error of the instrumentation. any recorded temperature increases are temporary.
only idiots with no science education fall for this... only globalists with a science education promote this.
Has anyone realized yet that all these "climate scientists" are liberal groupthinkers who watched An Inconvenient Truth 10 years ago as undergrads and bought into the horseshit? It's not like there's a long history of climate science, since the field was only created 20 years ago. The bias is inherrent in the whole field because every single one of these "researchers" is out to confirm their own ideological preconceptions they've carried since college.
consensus is not truth
![clathrate-gun[2].png](https://i.imgur.com/2Awjmrq.png "clathrate-gun[2].png")
I hope the worst does not happen.
>>76410227
>97% Believe in Anthropogenic climate change
>THEY ALL AGREE ON GLOBAL WARMING!
No.
Anthropogenic Climate change refers to any time human interference has changed climate
Which happens all the time and would be profoundly absurd to argue against
Mostly due to the vagueness of the term.
Ex.1:
>Human cattle owners live in Africa
>bring in lots of cattle near edge of desert grassland
>cattle eat all the grass
>lack of grass creates negative feedback loop of precipitation
>Climate of the area changes pushing the desert south
Ex.2:
>America builds fuck tons of airports
>Zip hundreds of flights across the nation daily
>Hundreds of planes leave off con-trails in the sky
>Con trail layer increases albedo of United States
>Reflects more sunlight
>Lowers temperatures in the US
No Climateologist would argue against those points happening.
Because we know they do.
BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THOSE SCIENTISTS BELIEVE IN THE LIBERAL NARRATIVE YOU SIMPLE MINDED TWAT
>>76422188
>And now we're in a massive recession cause OPEC decided to increase production, how's that massive unemployment working out for us?
the Saudis being twats proves global warming how?
>Pretty sure there's more jobs in solar than coal now too, but hey, it's just a money pit right?
do we even have a coal industry after shitty managament blew up all the mines in NS?
>And they aren't, so there is no need.
wasn't everything form An Inconvenient Truth supposed to have happened by now? Those are pretty big predictions to all have fail
>Edgy
but not incorrect, Harper was a fucking moron that sold us all out for Chinese money
>Scientists don't get payed to spout opinions, they get payed to create studies. They've already made their studies, so you're just plain wrong.
they get paid for both, and they'll keep making studies until it's either disproved or we destroy the world economy to "fix" it
>>76410227
OK, now how does that compare to the percentage that believed Darwin was wrong just after his books came out?
Science is not a process in which scientists vote and the winning side becomes true, rather it is a process by which ideas are subject to criticism and rigorous attempts to DISPROVE them, to "destruction test" theories in order to weed out the provably false.
Once an area of interest or study is made exempt from such questioning and testing, what is happening is no longer science, even if "scientists" are doing it, rather it is now politics. Or religion, I guess, since the AGW crowd act more like a religion than a political movement at this point.
>>76422518
The whole field of study is one giant circlejerk of grant applications and confirmation bias
>>76421615
I don't even know where you're getting this meme about false predictions desu
https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
>>76421910
Global warming IS climate change you fucking idiot.
And your figures are completely wrong, go read this link:
>>76418087
>>76410227
Consensus is a bullshit argument. You aren't right when people agree with you. You're right when you can prove it.
3rd world country here, i will keep turning the lights off when i don't need them and shutting down my big factories and industries, reduce my travels in private jets, use bikes instead of limos, and walk to the convenience store (since it's right beside my house with no chimney) to help slow down global warming.
>>76410227
So you've switched from Obamas job numbers to shilling for Al Gore...
>>76410227
Canada, our retarded, faggot cousins of the North.
Kill yourself.
>>76421355
>The effects in 100 years from AGW will be harder to fix and prevent than the effects from the next natural ice age in 10 000 years. Learn to prioritize.
>this is what warmingcucks actually believe
>>76422880
>the Saudis being twats proves global warming how?
You were the one who decided to move the goal posts by bringing up how other countries are 'throwing money down the drain', and I obliged to show that you're even wrong on that. And now you're moving the goal posts again to claim that what I said about OPEC has something to do with proving/disproving AGW? Are you retarded? Do you just argue in circles until someone gives up so you can delude yourself into thinking you've won? I bet you're considered the 'insufferable cunt' in your circle of friends and family.
>do we even have a coal industry after shitty managament blew up all the mines in NS?
We shouldn't have any jobs in coal desu, it's a horrible energy system
>wasn't everything form An Inconvenient Truth supposed to have happened by now? Those are pretty big predictions to all have fail
Everything is getting hotter as predicted and ice is melting, see:
>>76422357
>Harper was a fucking moron
Well that's one thing we can agree on
>they get paid for both, and they'll keep making studies until it's either disproved or we destroy the world economy to "fix" it
See:
>>76417642
>>76411446
>>76421355
the next ice age is happening right now, not in 10000 years. Educate yourself. We are already in it
Sounds like we now have the scientific communitiea approval to tax the poor for this!
>>76410227
There was also a concensus that the world was flat, earth is the center of everything, etc. Concensus means nothing.
>>76410227
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP&index=1
Mandatory watching for all climate change deniers.
>>76422518
>Can't actually argue against anything in thread
>Resorts to buzzword ad hominems
Lmao gud 1 bro
>>76422756
>>76422904
>>76422915
>>76423254
Consensus of opinion isn't in itself truth.
But consensus on thousands upon thousands of peer reviewed papers is.
Read the link:
>>76410227
>>76422865
The main cause of AGW is co2 emissions, which have never been this high in 800000 years. The severity of this IS in fact something they agree on. Something which apparently you're having trouble understanding.
>>76421649
>Muh sun rays
See:
>>76419735
>Seriously, you'd have to be an megalomaniac to think humans have the ability to stop mother nature.
Seriously, you'd have to be an utter fucking moron to underestimate the effect of industrialization and 7.3 billion people has on an ecosystem. There's no ego about this, it's just sheer numbers.
>Knock off the tobacco parallel shit
No, it's the same shit all over again.
Big oil shills and creates an echo chamber that falsely influences public opinion which hampers social progress on a serious issue, it's very much the same thing.
>>76424468
Arggh, it will take 10 000 years for the ice age to reach peak levels, a lot longer time period to deal with than 100 years for anything above 2C to royally fuck us over, do you have any concept of scale and time?!
>>76425165
Myth:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth
Not like what you're saying changes what I've already said in this thread 100 times.
Read the link in OP
>>76424819
Government policy is a different kettle of fish from public perception of AGW. Lets get everyone on board and then figure out how to solve the problem.
This isn't about taxes, this is about keeping the only home we have livable.
>>76426091
taxes are the only solution friend, politicians need more money in order to solve this and without taxes they cant.
>>76410227
>There is a census on consensus
*snore*
Really though, you know this is going nowhere right? Even on the off chance AGW is a thing worth worrying about, you've got exactly one race of people who give a shit about it and that race of people are being demographically destroyed in their own countries.
>>76426611
Research and development has allowed for some solar tech to be more economically viable than coal, all you have to do is let the free market fo its job
![BPIOMASIceVolumeAprSepCurrent[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/8og3i1g.png "BPIOMASIceVolumeAprSepCurrent[1].png")
>>76424413
>Everything is getting hotter as predicted and ice is melting
I wonder when the conscious public panic starts.
>>76428824
When the large natural disasters are almost daily probably
>>76427494
It is undeniably something to worry about.
Good job on turning it into a race issue, that's some impressive mental gymnastics
Even if AGW is true, it literally means nothing. I'm just a shitposter on /pol/. There's nothing I can do about it.
>>76429580
The evidence is overwhelming, but the public perception is divided. You can help educate your friends and family. The public needs to demand change from the policy makers
>>76429580
And we all know that meme magic is real, so you know your shitposting can make a difference
>>76423186
>we're barely at .5 now
>>76429435
>we surpassed 1.0 5 years ago
Which is it m8?
>>76412018
Germany is showing the way forward energy-wise.
>>76430940
First graph is in C, second is in F, learn2read
>>76431112
Costa Rica is mostly renewables, lots of countries are moving forward!
What's poland like in terms of policy and energy stats?
"The 2016 race downward in Arctic sea ice continued in May with a dramatic new record.
The average area of sea ice atop the Arctic Ocean last month was just 12 million square kilometers (4.63 million square miles), according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). That beats the prior May record (from 2004) by more than half a million square kilometers, and is well over a million square kilometers, or 500,000 square miles, below the average for the month.
Another way to put it is this: The Arctic Ocean this May had more than three Californias less sea ice cover than it did during an average May between 1981 and 2010. And it broke the prior record low for May by a region larger than California, although not quite as large as Texas.
"We’ve never seen anything like this before,” said Mark Serreze, who directs the center. “It’s way below the previous record, very far below it, and we’re something like almost a month ahead of where we were in 2012.”"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/06/07/weve-never-seen-anything-like-this-arctic-sea-ice-hit-a-stunning-new-low-in-may/?postshare=6721465327439837&tid=ss_tw
>>76432462
I don't have nice graphs, but we have ca. 1/8 of electricity production from renewables, half of it wind.
Solar is miniscule.
>>76433278
That's something to be proud of my friend
>>76433681
When do they discuss population control for the growning darkie population. That's always an option.
>>76435040
I think uneducated rednecks screaming for bigger pipelines and riding atvs and sleds all year is a bigger problem than marathon hunters in africa
>>76410324
Or the more motivation to keep the funding going. There is nothing high minded about "climate science" if people outside the field cant be convinced it is not because "climate scientists" are super smart it is because there isnt good data.
>>76415544
As far as the ice caps go is anyone actually currently tracking the total loss? I know the Antarctic caps are gaining mass but I haven't seen anyone calculating the TOTAL between Arctic and Antarctic. Also is that the only place for water to be stored?
>>76436994
Or those that aren't convinced have ulterior motives, whether they're directly paid off by fossil fuel companies, work in oil and gas and coal, or strongly believe that moving away from fossil fuels will hurt the economy, and in turn hurt them. Of course these people are going to be biased against the facts.
There is so much data supporting AGW it isn't even funny.
Exxon mobile's own science division found back in the 70's that emissions were going to cause major problems in the future and they just buried it instead of acting on it.
This whole argument about corrupt scientists is nonsense. Global warming science has been established and developing since the 1800's. It's lie saying doctors keep saying x causes cancer so they can continue to get geant money for research. Only conspiracytards believe this kind of crap
Cook. et. al was shit. The "independent" article screeners collaborated with each other and they included a whole bunch of articles not even in the field of climate science that just mention human caused climate change. They also had this fucky tiered rating system where even if an article agreed there was human contribution to climate but also made differing conclusions as to the severity of the effects, etc. it still counted towards the 97% figure. As other anons mentioned, some of these other surveys use statistical fuckery like using a 77 person sample size when 3000 people were invited to respond.
Other than that, so fucking what if its real? That doesn't justify any of the shit the alarmists want. We skip the whole economic cost-benefit-analysis part and go straight to the government must solve all our problems part.
Then there's the endless shilling for awful, shitty, alternative energy sources, once again, without any cost benefit analysis.
Also, most statistical models used in climate science are either considered outdated for measuring complex systems or weird obfuscational special snowflake bullshit.
Also
>38000 new jobs in March
>18000 are government jobs
suck it leaf
>>76437192
https://www.skepticalscience.com/increasing-Antarctic-Southern-sea-ice-intermediate.htm
God damn Canada fucking sucks. kys OP
I hope Trump pushes for a "we need to save or destroy Canada, the shitposting has gone LONG ENOUGH"
>>76438687
Literally not one citation.
But regardless, hey, two out of seven consenses 'debunked', according to you and your lack of citations. And I'll cecede cause I'm on my phone and don't feel like looking it up.
That's still five other papers showing scientific consensus. So good job on that.
>So what if it's real :^)
The cost of damage to infrastructure and loss of life will be far greater than the clumsy transfer from fossil to renewable, canada is experiencing gas shortafes because of an unprecedented wildfire that was able to grow so big because of global warming. That's why you should care.
A job is a job, burgerbro, doesn't incalidate anything
>>76423888
the lights probably do not do much difference.
airtransport is very CO2 intensive.
car travel is CO2 intensive too, but once we have cheap electric vehicles, it will be ok.
>>76416899
Yeah, the furthest most people are willing to go is drive a hybrid car, and recycle their Starbucks cup.
Even the ones who believe global warming is an imminent threat and we are on the verge of mass extinction won't actually do things like buy solar panels("But they look ugly"), avoid air travel("But I want to see Paris and Milan"), install insulation("But that takes a lot of work") or eat less meat.
They are, however, very willing to virtue signal online by donating $5 to some walk to end something bad somewhere and post about it everywhere possible.
>>76440107
Think he was 'avin a giggle m8
>>76440430
I voted, and I try to recycle as much as I can, but I'm even a culprit of working in oil and gas
>>76441641
probably, but they are doing renewables stuff:
http://cleantechnica.com/2015/11/14/how-renewables-can-reinvigorate-the-dominican-republic-part-2/
>>76410227
>skepticalscience
a site that was created to be skeptical of any articles, studies, or science, that goes against the narrative of climate change
>>76439586
>Literally not one citation.
Kinda fucking irrelevant to this entire thread as you've only linked to secondary sources from le science XDDD tier sites. You want citations? I'll hit back at your standard then. Here you go:
>Cook et. al. fuckery
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/search?q=cook
http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/cooking-stove-use-housing-associations-white-males-and-the-97
>a slew of articles on costs/benefits of spending a shitton of money on climate shit
http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2009/Murphygeoengineering.html
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2009/05/correcting-joe-romm-on-ipccs-cost-estimate.html
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2015/06/using-nordhaus-book-review-to-outline-flaws-in-u.s.-carbon-tax-narrative.html
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2009/05/benefitscosts-of-waxman-markey.html
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2014/04/climate-change-and-captain-kirk.html
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2014/03/lets-be-careful-with-spreading-out-damages.html
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2009/05/is-the-ipcc-saying-what-i-think-its-saying.html
>shitty climate modeling
http://philmagness.com/?p=1605
>But regardless, hey, two out of seven consenses 'debunked', according to you and your lack of citations. And I'll cecede cause I'm on my phone and don't feel like looking it up.
That's still five other papers showing scientific consensus. So good job on that.
I'm not really trying to debunk anything. Just putting shit I know out in the open. But if the fact that cook et. al. was one of the most cited sources of this claim doesn't phase you, I don;t know what would. I never said I disagreed with the conclusions any of these papers, I just sai they're dishonest in how they reach their conclusions. A "real" consensus number would probably also be pretty high, maybe not as high,but still up there. But, once again, flaunting a consensus alone doesn't mean shit, unless of course you're just playing politics.
contd.
Only 30% of climate science articles share their position openly
So 70% are N/A
>>76442652
>The cost of damage to infrastructure and loss of life will be far greater than the clumsy transfer from fossil to renewable
Proofs? I already know this is total BS, just want to see how you try to support this claim.
>canada is experiencing gas shortafes because of an unprecedented wildfire
totally believable.
>that was able to grow so big because of global warming
Once again, proofs. Its not like there's a far more proximate cause, say, shitty forestry management not effectively having controlled burns every few years. Why jump straight to global warming? I always see this and I wonder why.
>A job is a job, burgerbro, doesn't incalidate anything
I put that up because you're very obviously the same FUCKING LEAF who started a very similar thread using the almost exact same predictable rhetoric and tactics to argue your point that was shilling hard over obongos jobs numbers a few months ago. We can very clearly tell it's you.
>>76410227
check out this shocking study i just discovered
its almost as if they have an agenda and are funded based on the data they put forth
like they are making money off it or something
>>76443165
was a contd. of
>>76442652
Based leaf
>>76443252
not as much money as BP-funded """""""scientists"""""""" make off their false studies
>>76438920
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses/
Don't beleaf everything you read m8
>>76413323
>thinking per capita matters
U r retarded cunt
>>76410227
Back in the early 20th century 97% of scientists thought Newtonian physics was correct. Consensus =/= truth
This is literally
>ITT: /pol/ btfo
![medea-cycles[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/iuCZnw9.jpg "medea-cycles[1].jpg")
life seeks to kill other life, when it grows too large.
>>76444248
Hahahahah
>All plants on earth will die because you pollute too much!
Top Fucking Tier
>>76444800
What got me was even claiming there are models that are accurate 500 million years into the future. And I think the sun beginning to expand at around 1 billion yrs in the future will be a bigger problem than global warming.
>>76431112
Doesn't Germany get most of it's energy from French nuclear power plants?
>>76444248
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/study-finds-plant-growth-surges-as-co2-levels-rise-16094
I'll just leave this here....
>>76445040
no, their own nukes + brown coal + black coal
>>76410227
I hope they didn't do that thing where they lumped the "dunno/need more info/undecided" votes into the "Agree" votes :^).
>>76410435
Don't volcanoes cool the Earth though?
>>76445040
Yes, and its solar is all hugely subsidized. I'm also pretty sure that post fukushima France decided it didn't like nuclear anymore and wants to phase it out. Might be why slavs are dumping nat gas everywhere now.
>oil companies are evil
But I'll still buy from them
>my hybrid is saving the planet
But theres evidence that making the battery is actually more emissions than just using gas by the time they hit the lot. Who cares
>But all this evidence!
Which is consistently wrong and warming trends are generally causing more greenery with little negative effects
>climate change causes all weather problems
I really doubt we can control the fucking seas beyond killing the fuck out of wildlife. I don't see how weather has to do with soil erosion, or the proof that energy use is directly related
>33% of emissions are cow farts
wait what the fuck? Is that really true?
>97% climate scientists agree
yes because no climate science book even disputes global climate change because thats impossible to dispute. Climate changes. Manmade climate change goes to graphs and assumptions that have nothing to do with climate science at all. Its a belief not science.
>okay but fracking is evil
fracking has zero emissions and is far safer than oil drilling
>okay but nuclear is evil
They made siginificant advances over the years safety wise and its used the world over
>okay but wind farms and solar are getting better all the time!
but they still need to be supported by other more reliable energy sources
>you're a 'climate denier'
so instead of even arguing your point, I'm just wrong, is that what you are saying?
>I can't believe you support the oil companies
so do you
>>76410227
why dont you start fixing the issue by turning off your computer you shitlord
>>76410227
>97% of climate scientists agree to support the boogeyman giving them their jobs
>>76442359
Skeptical science relays information from a multitude of sources you fucking mong, and theyve won awards. All I see you doing is using ad hominem to make your point. Get fucked
>>76442652
Unfortunately, I'm out shopping right now, otherwise I would be reading up further on the cook study, REGARDLESS of the fact that there's 5 other studies you haven't bothered to mention that show the majority of climate scientists agree that the main driver of global warming is mankind.
And the canadian gas shortage is easy to google. The environmental damage not so much.
And I'm willing to bet this thread will be dead before I get home, but I guarantee you that you will see another thread of mine assessing your rebuttal, so keep an eye out
>>76410227
Yeah
Well 97% of Holocaust Historians claim it happened.
>>76410227
For more than 20 years every undergraduate that showed any evidence of critical thinking on this issue has been summarily failed and run out of the department, what do you expect?
Also
>Moron unironically uses the phrase 'scientific consensus' as if he were completely unaware that it's a contradiction in terms.
>>76445643
Consensus among scientists in the relevant fields you fucking salad eater.
>>76444248
It's how the universe works. With death.. comes life.
I believe humanity wasn't meant to stay on planet Earth instead i think humanity is here to evolve to a greater future.
All these econmic crisis migrations and "war" is merely a setback to something much greater.
>>76410227
What about all those times when scientific consensus was eventually proven wrong?
I'm an old bastard, 72 years old, retired geologist. I actually found this place when my grandson started talking about politics and he was surprisingly informative, so I asked him where he got his views from, and he pointed me here.
Anyway, I know this is just anecdotal, but I see the exact same kind of false science here for global warming as there was for cigarettes. a group needs money? Sure, we'll study about the positive benefits of smoking and publish it with good credentials. And the funny thing? It worked. People were absolutely convinced that smoking was fine for your health. I saw the same thing later in regards to if sugar was bad for your health or not. Now it's the same thing with global warming.
If you don't think there's money to be made off of getting to believe that CO2 is harmful to us, you're a damn fool. If you don't believe an increase of CO2 will cause stronger, healthier, food crops, which will have a very positive effect on the looming food shortages, you're a damn fool. If you believe that this level of CO2 is unprecedented, you're a damn fool. If you believe that CO2 will have a runaway effect and lead to mass destruction, not only are you an uninformed, unintelligent alarmist, but a damn fool.
Theres very little, authentic, genuine science being performed in the climate community. I myself have been subjected to some of my research being dismissed on the grounds that it didn't provide the results that the funders "wanted". If you think that the scientific institution is free from corruption, you're a damn fool.
>>76411446
but that list is just people that are saying its true
Global Warming is because libshits stopped Nuclear weapon testing.
>>76413323
why the fuck did they use this shitty fucking pie graph with 10 types of orange
>>76445949
>Consensus among scientists in the relevant fields you fucking salad eater.
>Continues to unironically rely on self-contradictory concept as if it were valid scientific argument. .
Oh, but trust us, we're *scientists*. We wear lab coats and have sciencey job titles and people take us seriously, we don't need to understand the fundamentals you plebes.
>>76446228
Thats the rub. Paradigm shift its called. It happens all the time, historically speaking. Historically everyone ever has been proven wrong to a certain extent. Medical science doesn't force you to accept certain procedures because its 'the only way', they give you percentages and the pros and cons of any drug or procedure they want to do to you.
The only argument for climate change is that its HORRIBLE and you are DOING IT by JUST LIVING so YOU NEED TO PAY.
Then they implement programs like adding ethanol to gas which just fucks your engine and pads oil companies profits.
Nice job Gore. Liberals have a short memory on these things.
>>76446304
I know you're likely older and better informed than me on this subject but I see the same ad hominem from the other side as well. Just present the facts, get them asking questions, and don't let them shut down the argument. Thats the only way the truth gets out, because someone listened and they got convinced. I used to believe until I read enough studies and enough political actions on the data to understand that it was too slanted in one direction.
They aren't fools so much as they are ignorant and believe what they are told. They maybe give half a fuck about the actual subject in the first place, and then you give them an expert opinion and then they'll defend that to the death because its what they learned to be true.
why using graphs that only go back a few hundred years at most? only using the very recent past isnt a good representation
>>76446304
>"i don't understand science"
you're a damn fool
gtfo old man
>>76445176
They radiate heat from the core
>>76410227
not an arguement
>>76447806
I mean volcanic explosions, with all the dust and ash they spew out.
>>76413323
>Technically Canada pollutes the most
every western country has themselves thinking they pollute the most
It's kind of crazy to me that humans are so influential in our planet's future.
>>76445099
Is there a good response to this from climate changers?
>>76445603
>Unfortunately, I'm out shopping right now,
Either that, or you're an imbecile or dishonest fool as you very clearly either only superficially read my post or completely ignored my points.
>otherwise I would be reading up further on the cook study, REGARDLESS of the fact that there's 5 other studies you haven't bothered to mention that show the majority of climate scientists agree that the main driver of global warming is mankind.
I addressed this already in >>76442652
>But if the fact that cook et. al. was one of the most cited sources of this claim doesn't phase you, I don;t know what would. I never said I disagreed with the conclusions any of these papers, I just sai they're dishonest in how they reach their conclusions. A "real" consensus number would probably also be pretty high, maybe not as high,but still up there. But, once again, flaunting a consensus alone doesn't mean shit, unless of course you're just playing politics.
Your next point:
>And the canadian gas shortage is easy to google.
Yes, I fucking know. I acknowledged it in >>76443165
>>canada is experiencing gas shortafes because of an unprecedented wildfire
totally believable.
You didn't address the important part of that piece of the discussion which came down to
>>that was able to grow so big because of global warming
Once again, proofs. Its not like there's a far more proximate cause, say, shitty forestry management not effectively having controlled burns every few years. Why jump straight to global warming? I always see this and I wonder why.
>And I'm willing to bet this thread will be dead before I get home, but I guarantee you that you will see another thread of mine assessing your rebuttal, so keep an eye out
Fucking why? I'm some random burger jackass on the internet. Based on what you've done fo far you'll just link to more of these advocacy websites that have canned responses to all these points already laid out.
>>76410227
In the year 1400, 100% of respected scientists believed that the sun orbited the Earth.
>Implying global warming is a bad thing
>That's right goy, let us enslave you with carbon taxes and emissions caps, you're too stupid to understand
Don't care
Keep fracking
Keep drilling
Keep coaling
Keep freighting
Keep flying
>>76410227
Who is the last 3%? does anyone have any articles written by them?
>>76410227
Excellent, let's go completely solar and wind power with a daisy chain of 10^7 battery cells. Should be perfectly doable in about a month or two.
>>76410227
>Studies have different results, despite all being about the same thing
>Studies aren't really studies, just surveys
>Multiple people are getting paid to find out if other people agree with them
This isn't science, it's politics
>living in Canada
>shilling for solar energy
U wot m8 i'll rekt you noggin' with mah nukular reactors
A majority of people believe in God. I guess I should stop being an Atheist now.
>>76412018
>I-i-i-if we throw our money at it now, it will become cheaper and maybe eventually cost-effective
>>76447186
Because their entire structure of bullshit falls apart if they can't get you to fixate on the extreme short term.
>>76450385
We have another winner!
No, no, of course I am joking and you are committing thought-crime. Report to your neighborhood watch officer for re-education immediately, comrade.
If we never had an industrial revolution the plants would have eventually run out of CO2.
Plants grow the best at 1500ppm, which is about 4 times the current concentration.
Up until the 19th century, plants consumed more CO2 than what was produced for quite a long time.
Tell me, why is all this a problem?
>>76451196
>implying that isn't how it worked with nuclear energy
>>76451273
>CO2 is the problem
>not methane from cow farts
>>76439586
Wrong it grew so big because of environmentalists who limited logging in the area. Besides the the predominant plant life in the region has evolved so that they will only seed will only become fertile when temperatures reach 168 degrees F.
>>76451474
It's the methane from perma frost that's the issue. About as much as all farming combined times ten for 20-30 years.
Oh yeah we're completely fucked!
>>76423186
>>76410227
Where did it come from? Oh yeah, the actual predictions not the back-fitted, rewritten crap that your pic has.
Look at this graph of all your failed predictions.
Source: Source: Dr. John R. Christy, the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, Huntsville.
>nb4 Schmidt and Nutter.
Completely debunked, Gavin Schmidt gets roasted:
https://climateaudit.org/2016/04/19/gavin-schmidt-and-reference-period-trickery/
Nuttercelli destroyed:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/20/the-guardians-dana-nuccitelli-uses-pseudo-science-to-libel-dr-john-christy/
>>76410551
>>76410227
Once again, the stupid meme of tacking high frequency data onto low frequency data. When will you warmist idiots ever learn. Oh, that's right, never because this is a secular religion.
Now here's data that doesn't mix low frequency data with high frequency data. Guess what? No hockey stick blade! No massive uptick!
Source: Beck, Ernst-Georg. "180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods." Energy & Environment 18.2 (2007): 259-282.
>>76417642
>>76410227
Which makes more sense? A power-hungry international governing body trying to steal $100,000,000,000 a year? Or a few bloggers who struggle to make a living. People like Anthony Watts, Steven Goddard, and Joanne Nova. Who don't take a penny from big oil.
>>76419484
>>76410227
>>76453555
PIC HERE
You are indeed a complete idiot. See here, Mr. "I can't do stats to save me!"
>>76453388
wow sick going back like 50 years? nice dude
you know the earths average temperature has been fluctuating up down for millions of years, way, way more than it is now? its a natural cycle, as in, we have no impact on it
there is no temperature raise in recent times that is out of the ordinary
the same way i can find a picture of this week, where everyday was hotter than the last, and clearly say with evidence "look, the temperature keeps going up!"
instead, you all post a cherry picked photo that shows maybe the last 100 years at most to somehow prove a point
>>76419735
>>76410227
Gosh why does NASA cherry pick only the studies that show low Solar variability? There a number of studies that show high solar variability. Pic related, enlarge to see references.
>>76420480
>>76410227
Cherry picked garbage. Why do you emphasize only dates starting from 1979? Oh yeah, because that was a year of very high arctic sea ice. But guess what there's satellite data going back to 1972, when sea ice was nearly 2,000,000 sq. kilometers less.
>climate trends
>a subject of scientific study
>somehow a political issue
STOP
>>76422357
Nice cherry picking buddy for the time points graphed. How about showing the entire time series?
Ooops! No big deal, is it?
>>76417642
yea because when it does happen and the oil runs out, the new technology that is designed to replace it, they wont have a fuckton of a fortune to gain right?
when there is no more oil, and you must go to them for energy, they have nothing to gain?
>>76429435
Not slow down in data tampering?
Why did Karl decide to include the bad Sea Surface Temperature data, and exclude the good buoy data? Gosh, and he did it right before the paris climate meetings!
>>76430031
>>76410227
>The evidence is overwhelming,
Yes, the evidence of massive data tampering to help the U.N. steal your money is everywhere!
Why isn't the impact of 3 billion third worlders noted in this graphs? It's always about blaming my car rather than Dikembes fourteen kids who have higher emissions than my corolla.
>>76410227
except your wrong. 97% of scientists believe there is global warming. of that 97% much fewer believe that there it is man made.
Are you going to pretend to be a climatologist in this thread.
>>76413750
There's a reason for bigger, more numerous fires. We spent the better part of a century gifting every forest and brush fire that popped up. The land would rarely burn. Over time, old growth built up incredibly thick. It built and built and built till it mixed with an ember. The for would quickly grow out of control.
In a few decades, once the old growth is gone, the number of make fires will greatly diminish. Forestry has taken a stance of intervention only when the fire threatens people.
Fire is good, the land needs to burn to remain healthy.
>>76410435
>global
>cina and india refuse to regulate their shit
>we better limit ourselves even further then
>>76410227
>>76410324
Muh Consensus! Every single paper proves climate change!
Lists of Skeptical Papers
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
http://www.c3headlines.com/peer-reviewed-research-studies-climate-change-related-other.html
http://chrono.qub.ac.uk/blaauw/cds.html
http://notrickszone.com/248-skeptical-papers-from-2014/
http://notrickszone.com/250-skeptic-papers-from-2015/
http://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2016/
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/Madhav%20bibliography%20LONG%20VERSION%20Feb%206-07.pdf
The short-term influence of various concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide on the temperature profile in the boundary layer
(Pure and Applied Geophysics, Volume 113, Issue 1, pp. 331-353, 1975)
- Wilford G. Zdunkowski, Jan Paegle, Falko K. Fye
Climate Sensitivity: +0.5 °C
Questions Concerning the Possible Influence of Anthropogenic CO2 on Atmospheric Temperature
(Journal of Applied Meteorology, Volume 18, Issue 6, pp. 822-825, June 1979)
- Reginald E. Newell, Thomas G. Dopplick
* Reply to Robert G. Watts' "Discussion of 'Questions Concerning the Possible Influence of Anthropogenic CO2 on Atmospheric Temperature'"
(Journal of Applied Meteorology, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp. 114–117, January 1981)
- Reginald E. Newell, Thomas G. Dopplick
Climate Sensitivity: +0.3 °C
CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic's view of potential climate change
(Climate Research, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 69–82, April 1998)
- Sherwood B. Idso
Climate Sensitivity: +0.4 °C
Revised 21st century temperature projections
(Climate Research, Volume 23, Number 1, pp. 1–9, December 2002)
- Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, Oliver W. Frauenfeld, Robert E. Davis
Climate Sensitivity: +1.9 °C
This board is full of Trump supporters. These imbeciles believe literally anything their King says. Nice effort though OP.
>>76456461
>>76410227
>>76410324
Muh Consensus! Every single paper proves climate change!
Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth's climate system
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 112, Issue D24, November 2007)
- Stephen E. Schwartz
* Reply to comments by G. Foster et al., R. Knutti et al., and N. Scafetta on "Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth's climate system"
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 113, Issue D15, August 2008)
- Stephen E. Schwartz
Climate Sensitivity: +1.9 °C
Aerosol radiative forcing and climate sensitivity deduced from the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 35, Issue 4, February 2008)
- Petr Chylek, Ulrike Lohmann
* Reply to comment by Andrey Ganopolski and Thomas Schneider von Deimling on “Aerosol radiative forcing and climate sensitivity deduced from the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition”
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 35, Issue 23, December 2008)
- Petr Chylek, Ulrike Lohmann
Climate Sensitivity: +1.3-2.3 °C
Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 1-2, pp. 177-189, January 2009)
- David H. Douglass, John R. Christy
Climate Sensitivity: +1.1 °C
>>76456618
>>76410227
>>76410324
Hurr, durr Consensus! Every single paper proves climate change!
On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
(Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 47, Number 4, pp. 377-390, August 2011)
- Richard S. Lindzen, Yong-Sang Choi
Climate Sensitivity: +0.7 °C
Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum
(Science, Volume 334, Number 6061, pp. 1385-1388, November 2011)
- Andreas Schmittner et al.
Climate Sensitivity: +1.7-2.6 °C
Probabilistic Estimates of Transient Climate Sensitivity Subject to Uncertainty in Forcing and Natural Variability
(Journal of Climate, Volume 24, Issue 21, pp. 5521-5537, November 2011)
- Lauren E. Padilla, Geoffrey K. Vallis, Clarence W. Rowley
Climate Sensitivity: +1.6 °C
Improved constraints on 21st-century warming derived using 160 years of temperature observations
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 39, Number 1, January 2012)
- N. P. Gillett et al.
Climate Sensitivity: +1.3-1.8 °C
Bayesian estimation of climate sensitivity based on a simple climate model fitted to observations of hemispheric temperatures and global ocean heat content
(Environmetrics, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp. 253–271, May 2012)
- Magne Aldrin et. al.
Climate Sensitivity: +1.9 °C
Ring, Michael J., et al. "Causes of the global warming observed since the 19th century." Atmospheric and Climate Sciences 2.04 (2012): 401.
Climate Sensitivity: +1.8 °C
>>76448671
>>76445099
You have to post images for these retards to understand anything. All they understand is memes and lol i'm totally a smart scientist. Except don't you dare try to disprove my theory because then your a stupid doo doo head.
>>76456749
>>76410227
>>76410324
Observational estimate of climate sensitivity from changes in the rate of ocean heat uptake and comparison to CMIP5 models
(Climate Dynamics, April 2013)
- Troy Masters
Climate Sensitivity: +1.98 °C
A fractal climate response function can simulate global average temperature trends of the modern era and the past millennium
(Climate Dynamics, Volume 40, Issue 11-12,pp. 2651-2670, June 2013)
- J. H. van Hateren
Climate Sensitivity: +1.7-2.3 °C
An objective Bayesian, improved approach for applying optimal fingerprint techniques to estimate climate sensitivity
(Journal of Climate, Volume 26, Issue 19, pp. 7414-7429, October 2013)
- Nicholas Lewis
Climate Sensitivity: +1.6 °C
The Potency of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) as a Greenhouse Gas
(Development in Earth Science, Volume 2, pp. 20-30, 2014)
- Antero Ollila
Climate Sensitivity: +0.6 °C
The role of ENSO in global ocean temperature changes during 1955–2011 simulated with a 1D climate model
(Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 50, Issue 2, pp. 229-237, February 2014)
- Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell
Climate Sensitivity: +1.3 °C
Otto, Alexander, et al. "Energy budget constraints on climate response." Nature Geoscience 6.6 (2013): 415-416.
Climate Sensitivity: +1.9 °
A minimal model for estimating climate sensitivity
(Ecological Modelling, Volume 276, pp. 80-84, March 2014)
- Craig Loehle
Climate Sensitivity: +1.99 °
>>76417635
wow nigger I didn't know scientific fact could be biased
wow
>>76457036
The bias is in the statistical analysis.
>>76422494
>Implying a 1 degree C temp change in the AVERAGE TEMP of the WHOLE WORLD doesn't make a difference
>implying the average temp of the planet during the last ICE AGE wasn't only FIVE FUCKING C below the current average
>implying a further increase in the global temperature average wouldn't fuck up the entire food chain by killing off entire species of plankton in the ocean
You're a fucking retard.
OP is a wonderful example of scientism, where one does not actually engage in critical thinking, one just mindlessly quotes an authority without investigating the merits.
Claims of "97% of scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming, where humans are the main cause" rest entirely on quoting Cook et al. 2013 without bothering to actually read the paper.
If they did, as Dr David Friedman has, they would see that this is fraud: http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2014/02/a-climate-falsehood-you-can-check-for.html
>>76456558
sure bro, post some more climate change graphs that go back 100 years
fact is, the earths climate change has been changing a fuck ton since, forever
humans have done fuck all to change the climate
the majority agreeing for something has 0% grounds in if something is true or not
the vast changes of climate change that go back many many thousands of years, obviously with no human involvement at all
the earths temperature will rise like it is now, and then it will fall like is has before us, time and time again.
another thing im sick hearing is all the people saying "the planet is fucked!"
even if it was fucked based on what the say (which is most certainly is not, the tempertures and climate changes we see today are not nearly as extreme as some from the past), the planet would be fine. the people would be fucked
>>76438923
You're twelve gg
>>76420784
The PM had almost no control over the direction of Alberta's economic development.
The muzzled scientists were simply prevented from using their jobs as government employed scientists in support of their personal beliefs.
So:
"As a scientist I think this is X." okay and allowed.
"As a government of Canada scientist I think that X is Y" not allowed.
>>76457156
This one is slightly misleading; the figure on the left claims that 97% of papers agree that humans have caused climate change/global warming while the one on the right claims that 99.7 agree that CO2 is not the driving cause.
Notably these pieces of information are not mutually exclusive.
The information that is missing here is that the worst greenhouse gasses are things like methane and water vapour (with water vapour being something like 250 times more potent than CO2). The problem then is that if you increase the temperature slightly then that in turn increases the amount of evaporation over the oceans, which increases the water vapour content of the air and causes climate change.
So humans can cause a small amount of imbalance that is them amplified by other parts of the system. Both of the claims in this image are correct.
>>76422865
>>Human cattle owners live in Africa
>>bring in lots of cattle near edge of desert grassland
>>cattle eat all the grass
>>lack of grass creates negative feedback loop of precipitation
>>Climate of the area changes pushing the desert south
Just to be fair that's actually the exact reverse of what happens. Ultra intensive grazing promotes the growth of grass lands so long as the herds move once the grass is eaten. By leaving grass to accumulate over the years it builds up a layer of dead grass that chokes off the grass and prevents rain absorption.
This is reflected in nature when prior to development by man massive multi million animal herds would eat everything shit all over the place and then move on.
We can replicate this natural and healthy process by moving in massive animal herds let them eat everything and then have them move on.
https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change?language=en
>>76457596
this is all true, if you acknowledge that human involvement is extremely low
thing is, none of this matters in the grand scheme of things
there were probably many, many times in earths history when humans could not have survived.
...we werent the cause of that
the earth goes through cycles, some lasting thousands of years
now im all for attempting to prolong the survival of humans, but acting like we are the cause of todays changes, or believing would be able to live on earth forever is silly
>>76458571
The fact that you've linked to a Ted talk as a source just demonstrates that you're full of shit about this one.
In reality you need animals to compress the soil enough to reduce how porous it is near the edge of said desert, you also need fertiliser which the animals provide, but overgrazing is a fucking terrible idea that takes years to recover from
>>76410227
>97% of climate scientists want people to think their jobs are relevant
wow, who would have guessed?
