Climate change denyers BTFO!
>>81349371
>Bill Nye
I fucking hate Bill Nye "The meme guy"
>Climate change deniers BTFO
Not hard
Fucking leafs man, at least Australians are entertaining.
>>81349371
>Bill "Doesn't even have a science degree" Nye
>>81349371
I didn't know mechanical engineers were the go to authority on global warming
>>81349371
If the problem is that bad the answer is not the government.
>>81349371
Climate change is a thing
But Bill Nye needs to fuck right off and take his engineering degree with him
He's not even a real scientist. My dentist probably knows more about science than this faggot does.
>>81349371
He's right, and anyone who disagrees is a fool who deserves to be shot.
>>81349371
Why do YOU believe in climate change?
Unless you're a climate scientist, it's simply because some organizations representing scientists have declared it to be so. You're believing what you're being told, because scientists would never mislead the public.
>>81351146
>anti-intellectualism
>"Don't trust academics, trust big business goy!"
>a leaf
:^)
1/3 of all the CO2 man has produced since 1750 has been released since 1997. Since 1997, satellite measurements show there has been no global warming.
Thanks for playing, Bill.
>>81351506
>sticking to the old global warming
>not the modern climate change
>a leaf
;^)
>>81351623
My bad. I shall whip myself for not using the latest newspeak.
Thank you, fellow Oceania bro.
>>81351146
Tell me, my leafy friend.
Even if what you say is true and the claims of climate change are grossly exaggerated, what is the harm of playing it safe and preparing for the inevitable? Better safe than sorry.
I'm just wondering.
Weather or not anthropocentric climate change is real, the world is not prepared to make the sacrifices that would need to be made to end it.
So smoke em if you got em.
>>81349371
That's CNNs token fake conservative that also hates Donald Trump and supported the never Trump campaign. Shes paid to act like a retard while supposedly supporting conservative principles.
>>81351988
>the sacrifices
>most of humanity would need to die off
>implying this isn't what the elite want
>>81352033
Not all conservatives like Trump, my Canadian friend.
>>81351983
>Even if what you say is true and the claims of climate change are grossly exaggerated, what is the harm of playing it safe and preparing for the inevitable? Better safe than sorry.
That's precisely our point.
Adaptation is orders of magnitude less expensive than mitigation. We should prepare for the effects, not try to act like we can control the climate.
Estimates per degree celsius mitigation, using, for example, the Australian model, are in the quadrillions of dollars.
The reality of this debate is that the people on the alarmist side are acting more like religious cultists than scientists.
>>81349371
Him making an absurd ideological stake doesn't "BTFO" anyone but himself.
>>81351479
>anti-intellectualism
>"Don't trust academics, trust big business goy!"
I think he's saying you shouldn't blindly trust anyone and that you should do your own research to come to your own conclusions via critical thinking. Is that really anti-intellectual?
>>81352287
>#consforshillary
Nice try schlomo. But regardless, she has a tenuous grasp on conservative principles, it's cringe worthy watching her shill for the network.
>>81349371
>longest period without a major hurricane (cat 3+) in recorded history
>since 2005 and going strong
>like 3 years after the scientists in an inconvenient truth said global warming would increase the FREQUENCY and SEVERITY of hurricanes.
>"scientists" dont want you to know that they actually cant predict shit
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/kathleen-brown/noaa-says-its-record-no-major-hurricane-has-struck-us-mainland-10-years
>>81352497
>Ideological stake
Fuck science I guess.
>>81352381
What if it isn't possible to adapt to these changes? Even if it is a slow and steady decline, the measures that need to be taken will most likely be extreme. At the very least, shouldn't we accept that Earth cannot suffer so many people to live on it long-term? Shouldn't we return to looking to the stars and exploring space?
>>81352717
>#consforshillary
Where did I imply that I would ever support Hilllary fucking Clinton? I appreciate you trying to shoehorn my politics into your narrow, monochromatic view of the American political landscape, but it's not exactly as the shitposters would have you believe.
>>81352960
>science tells you anything about what ought to be valued
A fucking leaf.
>be concerned about the health of the planet
>think humans are destroying the earth
>become climate scientist
every single climate "scientist" is an activist at heart. they are only in science because they want to convince people that the planet needs saving. they're not in science because they grew up loving to learn how shit worked or wanted to make new discoveries. they're in science to achieve their political objectives.
Bill (((Nye))) the "Bachelor's Degree In Mechanical Engineering" Guy
>>81349371
The problem is the entire argument about CO2 is based on a faulty computer model. A study from 2000 to 2011 showed that CO2 was escaping at a much higher rate than predicted by computer models (which basically allowed for little to no escape, by factoring that the rate of escape was constant). This revelation lead to a study in 2013 which found very strong correlation between the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the rate of it's escape.
In other words, the greater the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the more quickly it is pushed into space. Also, keep in mind that during the Jurassic Period there was 5 times the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
>>81352563
>Via critical thinking
Do you really expect ANY /pol/lack to be able to understand science at that degree? NASA publishes results based on instruments that have costed billions. How is your "critical thinking" going to challenge that?
You really have to be mentally retarded to not see that the PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere is growing and that many scientific experiences have shown so. Climate change-deniers are way worse than anti-vacciners.
>>81353181
>science tells you anything about what ought to be valued
>A fucking leaf.
Please tell me you're joking, this can't be real
>SE Cupp
into the trash it goes.
>>81350447
No, the answer is government. Antibiotics resistant bacteria is currently on the rise at an alarming rate and thanks to the US government and the CDC they have reduced the antibiotic use in agriculture by 75 percent, they has gotten many pharmaceutical companies to start working on new drugs because the US government is offering 2 billion dollars for each new antibiotic created and they are have started punishing doctors for over prescription of antibiotics. Same thing is happening in Europe.
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-antibiotic-resistance-20160711-snap-story.html
>>81353591
>ou really have to be mentally retarded to not see that the PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere is growing
doesnt matter. the heat retentive properties of CO2 top off at like 250 PPM. i think the global average is like 400 PPM. we could double the CO2 in the atmosphere and we would only influence the average temperature by like a degree, i.e. nothing on the planet would even notice. global warming is a hoax and people are on the cusp of realizing that all the scientist's predictions have been wrong.
>>81351983
The harm is that the proposed solution to this supposed crisis is Socialism.
Incidentally, most scientists are left-wingers.
>>81354131
IS. OUGHT. IS. OUGHT. IS-OUGHT.
A FUCKING LEAF!
>>81351983
Lots of harm. How about having your insurance premiums go up by 1000% because the local council declare the sea level is going to rise by about a metre in the next 10 years. And wasting loads of money on infrastructure that won't be needed, because it's not happening, and the actual erosion is because the roads were built on sand over 80 years ago....
Right wingers realizing that free markets can't solve climate change so they deny it. Makes you think..
>>81354470
>>81354518
I don't know why questions of science and the environment always lead to economic answers. I would say the end of the world (be it by climate change or overpopulation/scarcity of resources) kind of outweighs questions of economics.
>>81354982
Not my problem. Let my grandchildren deal with it.
>>81354982
Because it's all about money, and the world is not going to end because of climate change.
For me the priority is climate, immigration, then economics.
Without a planet, we cannot survive. Immigration is also a permanent thing. Then economics is last, because those policies can change year to year.
>>81351988
>anthropocentric
>centric
JUST
>>81354778
It was the same thing with antibiotic resistance; during the 80 to the early 00s most right wingers thought antibiotic resistance was some kind of scam created by scientists just to get free money from the government.
>>81355209
If it isn't climate change, it'll be water scarcity or something else. Eventually, there will be a question that outweighs your economic concerns.
What would you recommend doing in the event of something like this?
>>81355320
In *what world* do you think the planet is going to become uninhabitable due to *THIS*?
A
FUCKING
LEAF
>>81355710
Doesn't climate change work both ways, though?
For example, if too much CO2 is released from the atmosphere wouldn't that just result in something akin to another ice age? I'm pretty sure this is why people don't use 'global warming' anymore.
I'm not trying to criticize you, just asking for your insights.
>>81349371
Bill Nye is a globalist shill. Dropped.
>>81349371
Not the muslim extremists in Europe? Oh wait I forgot they are a result of climate change.
>>81355619
That's why I'm stockpiling food, and buying a gun (which is fairly easy in this country. I need to register to own a gun, but I don't need to register the gun)
>>81349371
>Bill Nye 2012
The ice caps are melting and millions of people are going to drown.
>Bill Nye 2016
The ice caps are growing and millions of people are going to freeze/starve to death.
>>81351146
>Why do YOU believe in climate change?
Mainly because, from even a simple physics perspective, it seems to make a lot of sense.
>Light emitted from the sun has a peak wavelength of about 0.483 um
>Which means that the atmosphere is mostly transparent to the incoming radiation
>Reabsorbed by the earth
>Remitted by the earth
>About 1035 cm^-1 (assuming the average temp of the earth is about 300K)
>Particularly close to the symmetric stretch mode of CO2 (about 1288 cm^-1)
>Means the atmosphere is now almost opaque to the outgoing IR radiation.
>Thus the radiation becomes trapped between the earth and the atmosphere
You simply can't keep adding a quantity of heat to a body without it heating up, you might be able to hide it (in the oceans or somewhere), but eventually the body will heat up.
>But what about other greenhouse gases?
Well that comes down to the "residence times" of the various gases. Take water, water is a greenhouse gas, but it's residence time is only a few hours or days, so it precipitates out after a while. CO2 however is more complicated, so the added quantity of CO2 has a residence time of something on the order of a century. So it's a much bigger problem.
"Everyone that disagrees with me is a globalist shill!"
>>81356007
Temperatures vary year by year. They just do. And, at that, they don't vary drastically enough to cause anything catastrophic at all. Speaking as if everything on the planet is so fragile that the tiny climate fluctuations they've all lived with for millennia are going to kill them off is beyond delusionally tin-foil.
>>81356037
And what's wrong with globalism? I didn't know that coming together to fight things like climate change instead of fighting idiot wars was a bad thing.
>>81349371
climate change is just liberal black magick.
>>81356764
Everyone is a globalist. This forum and all our different flags is globalism.
>>81354450
>by like a degree, i.e. nothing on the planet would even
Can't believe that you're a Google search away from changing your life
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php
http://www.livescience.com/10325-living-warmer-2-degrees-change-earth.html
Read nigga, READ
>>81354511
Jesus Christ, why haven't you killed yourself already you cancer?
>mfw "global warming" was a record of improvements in thermometers the entire time
Where the fuck is the correlation between CO2 and heat?
>>81357077
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-moral/#io
Why haven't you~
>>81357077
please see
>>81352741
the scientists couldnt even predict how global warming would impact hurricanes. that was like their main prediction. that hurricanes would increase in FREQUENCY and SEVERITY. they were wrong. wonder what else they're wrong about.
>>81357511
scientists are wrong about everything. "science" is a liberal code word for "degeneracy".
>>81357511
Yeah yeah, and the earth's flat and the sun goes around us
I fucken hate leafs and ameritards, almost as much as australians
>>81349371
And yet I still don't care.
>>81354982
Actually, a lot of corporations have started large projects for renewable/sustainable shit without government intervention. They view the government as being too slow to respond to shit like this and started collaborative projects with other companies and NGOs.
>>81349371
If you honestly think climate change is the most important topic right now you, you need a bullet in your head and/or voting rights removed
>>81353363
>"Bachelor's Degree In Mechanical Engineering"
This is true. However, the truth of an argument is not established by the presenter's qualifications.
>Jack the Plumber told the group gathered before him that it is unwise to kill off the lowest part of an ecosystem's food chain, as this would cause a cascading reaction that would ripple all the way through the rest of the chain.
>Jack doesn't have a degree in biology, which means whatever claims he makes about this field are wrong or somehow dubious!
>>81358220
those corporations are liberals and deserve to fail.
>>81358017
>>81357511
So this is how we define global warming now, by how many hurricanes happen in the United States.
I'm done, I'm really done. I really like /pol/, but you guys become absolutely retarded when it comes to anything related to science. But hey, if global warming isn't real, and that pollution isn't really ruining the environment, then go take a nice tour in China.
>>81357482
That was way too much autism for me to handle. Pic related for the tripfag
>>81354450
>Global average temp. of planet is increased by 5 degrees
>Methane vents melt and increases the average temp of planet by another 5 degrees
>Everyone dies
He has a B.S in mechanical engineering and is a meme thanks to hosting a popular science show for 8 year olds 15 20 years ago. Can libshits stop shilling this fuck as some kind of authority on climate science?
>>81352033
Jeffrey Lord is the new token conservative and his one and only job is to literally agree with Trump and defend him on every issue. It's pretty sad. He gets beat up on by like 5 liberal pundits at once
>>81358464
>logic and facts are autistic
A FUCKING LEAF
F
U
C
K
I
N
G
L
E
A
F
>>81349371
I want to cupp Sarah Elizabeth.
>>81349999
check'd
>>81358814
i want to spoon sarah palin
Climate change is literally an extortion racket. Also china doesn't give a fuck so you're not stopping anything.
>Literally the entire planet used to be one continent
>Climate change is bad!
I'll never understand this. The only bad thing about climate change, is that those waterfront properties will become Atlantis. Considering that includes San Francisco, Seattle, and NYC, I hesitate to call this a bad thing.
>>81357212
You don't want a correlation between CO2 and heat content. Why would you assume a linear relationship?
>>81358464
>So this is how we define global warming now, by how many hurricanes happen in the United States.
it was like the overarching prediction made by climate scientists when this whole thing started ramping up. an inconvenient truth even has hurricane cloud ominously coming out of a smokestack for the movie poster. so the major prediction they made about climate change 15 years ago was wrong. why the hell should we accept what these activists/scientists are saying now?
>>81349371
How about providing proof for this climate change instead of some guy who had a science show for 9 year olds.
And no, not some bias article from Cuckington Post
>>81357511
>that was like their main prediction
I work in climate science, and that definitely wasn't the target of many studies. Most GCMs don't care about the formation of hurricanes.
>>81358464
You need to go pray right now! To the global scientismology gods to send more hurricanes to the heathen unbelievers.
>>81349371
Stop sliding.
>>81351623
you have to be memeing.
but for people who don't know, this is the definition of climate from wikipedia:
>Climate is the statistics (usually, mean or variability) of weather, usually over a 30-year interval.
so saying climate change is actually like saying omg my god
>>81354518
Do you really think the city council decides insurance premiums? Also, why would the Pentagon, staffed by hard core, far right science hating republicans be preparing for the effects of climate change as a national security risk if it were simply a liberal scheme to bring about socialism?
>>81359123
Any change that might actually happen will be so incremental that no one with half a brain will be affected. If the water comes up half a foot every year, you notice that it might be a good idea to move *LONG* before your property is under water. *YEARS* before it.
>>81358547
>a popular science show
For children.
>>81359123
>those waterfront properties will become Atlantis
But even that's not true. Ocean levels have been DROPPING, not rising. The meme about islands disappearing is a completely fabricated claim.
>>81359507
>WE NEVER SAID THAT
fucking retard. yes you did. you cant just ignore it and pretend like it never happened because you were wrong. you faggots have no credibility.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0804_050804_hurricanewarming.html
>>81358640
>Logic and facts
This also can't be fucking real. Did you even understand what you linked me you dimwit?
So I'll just repeat what your butt-buddy wrote to me
>science tells you anything about what ought to be valued
>Proceeds to talk about Hume's law, which he just violated
Unless we have a different definition of "valued" here, then yes, science does tell us what IS to be valued, not just OUGHT to be valued. Bill Nye is right, science is right, wars and other economic issues aren't as urgent as global change if we continue to this trend. Fucking idiot.
>>81349371
Bill seems to have sort of a hook nose
Does this mean what I think it does?
>>81360056
Not technically true. Sea level is rising about 3mm a year. Which is perfectly normal.
>>81360195
>Did you even understand what you linked me you dimwit?
I understand the problem fully. *YOU* however, very obviously don't~
For everyone who is present - BEHOLD!
I PRESENT TO THEE A FUCKING LEAF'S UNDERSTANDING OF THE IS-OUGHT PROBLEM!
>science does tell us what IS to be valued, not just OUGHT to be valued
A. FUCKING. LEAF!!!!
>>81360073
>we
>you
Please, bitch. Read the paper instead and then come back and I think I can be bothered discussing this publication.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7051/abs/nature03906.html
>>81360613
I think we need to redefine what the science is.
>>81349371
Really shuts down your atoms.....
>>81349371
Who the fuck is even talking in this picture?
>>81360195
What is the smoking gun on global warming? What makes it such an obvious fact beyond any reasonable doubt?
I'm asking honestly. I'm kind of an agnostic on this issue.
>implying AI isn't a bigger, more urgent danger right now
>>81349371
>MY FUCKING FLAG
>>81360613
it says exactly what i said
>>81360832
Cool. What's your suggestion?
>>81361098
This. The machines will kill us all long before global warming will.
>>81357511
I honestly don't see where you're coming from. Increase of frequency of hurricanes is just one small aspect of global warming, not the main one. If you want to "debunk" global warming, why not actually address the main point of global warming, which is the increase of global temperature? And not just a side-effect on it?
>>81360577
You're literally beyond saving. Please do the entirety of humanity a favor and kill yourself along with all of your family. Hopefully, the gene-pool won't be further stained.
>inb4 herrr durrrr leeeafft muh leafff
>>81349371
Giving more power to politicians is not the answer
Increasing taxes is not the answer
If we don't know how the climate change works yet we cannot get a decent answer and as a result we cannot plan properly
Let science do it's work and stop throwing politics at it.
>>81350682
Dentists have doctorates.
BIll Nye has a masters. lol
>>81361616
>science does tell us what IS to be valued, not just OUGHT to be valued
>>81361044
>What makes it such an obvious fact
Being a scientismic denier of our scientistic revelations is denying scientismical scientismeology. Only stoopids do that.
>>81354223
>talking about all the things gov is doing
>not looking at the actual results
You're one of those cucks who believes "mo money for dem schools" leads to better educated students, aren't you?
"Punishing doctors for over prescription of antibiotics" makes people less likely to finish their prescription when they do get antibiotics because of the difficulty of getting a prescription in the first place.
They "feel well" and save the last half of the bottle for the next time they get sick.
Which leaves the strongest bacteria still alive.
Thereby preserving the gene expression which allowed those bacteria to survive the shorter duration / lower dosing. (The dose is the poison. Most resistant strains will still die with sufficient dose/duration. But if you keep selecting those strains over and over eventually they're immune.)
>good job gov!
This past winter season was the worst I've seen when it came to stupid doctor behavior with antibiotics. I had a friend with an upper respiratory infection who got 7 days of amoxicillin. After the 7 days she still had symptoms, but the Dr. wouldn't refill. Fast forward 30 days and her Dr. is in a panic giving her 14 days of a stronger antibiotic. From her lingering symptoms I would say the infection survived that as well, but not at a level (population) that could survive her immune system over the next couple weeks.
So basically this dumb ass doctor...going off advice from the dumb ass CDC...selected the bacteria with some resistance to amox, then selected from that group the bacteria with some resistance to a 2nd AB.
GREAT JOB ASSHOLE.
What doctors SHOULD BE doing:
* Test mucous to confirm bacterial infection and type.
* Select the AB most effective against type detected.
* POUND THE FUCK OUT OF IT. 14 day minimum treatment at higher doses than we're using.
* Make damn sure the patient understands they must finish the prescription, and must return for testing if they have any remaining symptoms.
>>81361616
>which is the increase of global temperature?
who cares about increasing temperature if there are no harmful side effects? scientists have no clue what happens and they're using scare tactics to achieve their political objectives.
Daily reminder:
* A doubling of preindustrial CO2, absent any feedbacks, would result in a maximum forcing of +1.2C.
* The General Circulation Models, and the IPCC, predict 2-8C of warming because AGW theory assumes a positive H2O feedback. They assume that if CO2 causes a little warming, the atmosphere will hold more water vapor which will lead to a lot of warming.
* The warming predictions cover such a large range because everyone assumes a different average H2O feedback rate.
* Every GCM based on this assumption has failed to model temperatures for the past 17 years. They are all trending too high.
* In the late 1990's the modelers themselves stated that if they missed their predictions for more then a decade that would falsify AGW theory.
* There is no data to suggest a +H2O feedback either now or in Earth's past.
* If there is no +H2O feedback then we literally have nothing to worry about.
* The average climate change believer knows none of this. Politicians, citizens, activists, surprisingly even a lot of scientists are literally ignorant of the theory and the math. In their mind it's simply "CO2 = bad" and "experts say we're warming faster then ever."
>>81361044
There isn't one single attribute or property, but I'd say here's my personal top 3:
Increasing ocean heat content
Greening Earth (change in LAI)
Antarctic land (!) ice mass loss
There's a few others that might be a bit more intuitive, such as tropospheric average temps, but they're a bitch to measure and I wouldn't trust that data as far as I can throw it.
>>81361223
First we need to obtain control of magazine editors. Maybe even fire some of them for allowing denialism in to their publications.
>>81349999
Nice Final Fantasy quads
>>81361044
NASA and nearly ever scientific institution on Earth, and the vast majority of scientists agree that there is an increase in global temperature reasonably due to human activity.
I could post you tons of links but it won't really matter. The idiots here with dysfunctional brains will just tell you that their pastor or their local right-wing politicians know better.
Here's a link I posted earlier ;
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php
>>81362107
You put a shitload of effort into all that ad hominem.
>>81362393
>* There is no data to suggest a +H2O feedback either now or in Earth's past.
What about this then?
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v349/n6309/abs/349500a0.html
>>81362603
But Canada, if you attempt to stop global warming, it wins! Do we really have the right to deny global warming the right to exist? It's awfully racist of us to say that global warming is bad - we should look at it from a different perspective. By accelerating global warming we'll have a beautiful, diverse world that we all can live in!
>>81349371
Problems that are more urgent than climate change:
>overpopulation
>Mass immigration of 3rd worlders into 1st world countries (if you want to lecture me on the definitions of these terms, please just fuck off)
>Globalism
>Hillary Clinton
>Robot uprising
>economic collapse
>the Rapture
>antibiotic resistance (maybe number 1)
Then maybe climate change
>>81362529
Which magazines are you talking about specifically? AGU/EGU publications have quite a few gw-skeptic articles. Of course there aren't a lot of them .. but that's because there aren't a lot of arguments that would get past the reviewers.
>>81362372
>To achieve their political objectives.
What political goals? Don't you think it's the other way around? The most powerful corporations on Earth today are nearly all oil and other fossil fuels companies. The politicians which are lobbied by these companies fight hard to suppress information about global warming. It's true because my country did that under Harper, he reduced funding for global warming research because he's a big investor in oil in Alberta.
The thing is, even countries like China, which have neglected global warming, are changing their tone now due to the pollution ruining their country. China is the largest investor in green technology on Earth and is hoping to replace fossil fuel energy soon enough, otherwise the country is doomed. Do you want the same fate for the US?
>>81362603
>the vast majority of scientists agree that there is an increase in global temperature reasonably due to human activity.
Recognizing that humans generate heat is not a endorsement of your whacky Armageddon doomsday cult.
>>81349371
Bill Nye is not a scientist.
>>81351146
Because it's common sense. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and we're producing vast amounts of it. It doesn't take brains to realizing this.
>>81351983
>what could be bad about our government spending billions of our tax dollars, yet not solving the problem, or even coming close to solving the problem
Government does not solve problems, or create technology. That's what private companies do.
I don't doubt that climate change is real, but to even suggest it is the single biggest issue facing us right now is utterly absurd.
What does he expect us to do? What difference can we actually make? How long will it take for these effects to make a tangible difference?
Does he expect us to disregard everything else and let society and the economy go to complete ruin while we focus all our resources on climate change?
For fucks sake.
>>81362603
>NASA and nearly ever scientific institution on Earth, and the vast majority of scientists agree that there is an increase in global temperature reasonably due to human activity.
>MUH CONSENSUS!
NASA and every scientific institution on Earth running AGW models have also missed their predictions. In science when your theory misses a prediction that means it's falsified.
The reason is that they are all assuming a positive H2O feedback that doesn't exist, or is much weaker than they've assumed.
If there's no or little positive feedback to CO2 then there's nothing to worry about because CO2 itself is a weak GHG. The benefits to plant life, and therefore the entire biosphere, from having more CO2 greatly exceed any negatives from a planet with a 1.2C warmer average temperature.
>>81356450
>Therefore the solution is to give government billions of dollars and hope they solve the problem
Nobody denies that CO2 affects our atmosphere, the problem is we don't want our dumbass government wasting our money to not solve the problem.
Also right now inactive volcanoes contribute 10% of our Earth's CO2 output.
Short of halting all use of coal based energy, there is no solution right now - no matter how many billions the government wastes.
>>81363165
>there aren't a lot of arguments that would get past the reviewers.
Well done. Control by our people of the peer review process is another step in our platform.
Next we will seek to paint our critics as scientific heretics and enemies of the planet.
>>81363739
>Sometimes the scientific community is wrong, therefore we must assume they are always wrong.
welp
>>81363955
>97% of scientists say its true
>forget looking at the actual data
>97% say its true so it's true
>>81350215
Considering they take lots of physics and thermodynamics, they are a much better authority than some literal who poly sci major.
>>81364174
>Scientists looked at their own data and still say it's true
>They're obviously wrong, my high school knowledge is better
>>81363263
>Armageddon doomsday cult.
It won't happen overnight. It's a long process. Several decades perhaps. Preventing is better than curing.
>>81363739
>NASA and every scientific institution on Earth running AGW models have also missed their predictions
Source?
Inb4 skepticalscience.org
>If there's no or little positive feedback to CO2 then there's nothing to worry about because CO2 itself is a weak GHG
Partly true, CO2 is still a capable GHG and you need to realize that as CO2 levels rise, so do other GHGs, as per example, with ice caps melting, tons of methane is being released into the air. And methane is a very powerful GHG.
>The benefits to plant life, and therefore the entire biosphere, from having more CO2 greatly exceed any negatives from a planet with a 1.2C warmer average temperature.
This is a joke, right? I addressed your other points because they were reasonable, but please tell me this is a joke.
>>81364463
Show me the data then. oh wait you can't, because the scientists have to make up excuses like "the pause" to try to explain why the temperature isn't changing at the rate they predicted.
If you show me the data you'll show me that the Earth's atmospheric temperature has not been trending the same way, but rather fluctuates year by year.
>>81362875
>What about this then?
>"Thus, we conclude that the water vapour feedback is not overestimated in models and should amplify the climate response to increased trace-gas concentrations."
But the warming we've observed is NOT consistent with this. Which means their measurements were wrong, misleading (i.e. more measurements over a longer time period would lead to a different conclusion), or there is one hell of a negative feedback in the climate that we have all missed.
The last one is entirely possible. We cannot accurately model clouds. More H2O should lead to more cloud formation. But whether those clouds, on average, trap IR or bounce a good deal of it back into space is something we cannot model with any accuracy.
But I wouldn't dismiss the first two possibilities.
>>81363905
>Control by our people of the peer review process is another step in our platform.
Well, would you risk your scientific reputation by giving a publication the proverbial thumbs-up just for the sake of having a different point of view and upping the 'gw-skeptic' fraction, despite knowing the science is shit?
If I recall correctly, I had to review 4 gw-skeptic articles in the last 5 years or so, and they were all utter crap. 2 of them were Chinese, if I remember, so it was hard to fucking even read the gibberish (I swear, they used a Mandarin-English dictionary from 1645 or so), the others were Swiss and French. The French one was the only publication I could recommend for publication, the rest were crap. They just tend to be shite.
>>81351988
A FUCKING LEAF
>>81363955
Your reading comprehension is shit if you read that into any part of what I wrote.
>>81351479
Paid education through a liberal filter is pseudo intellectualism at best. They come out knowing nothing. Doctors today know less than they did 100 years ago in many ways.
>>81364974
It's just a troll.
>muh consensus
>ignore the data tho
>muh 97%
>just don't look at the data!!!!!!!
>>81351988
A lot of the changes would solve many other problems.
I happen to think (and this is more of a faith kind of thing for me fyi) that this is all part of the grand scheme of things that these problems come about when we are just barely capable of tackling them if we only challenge ourselves and this is the catalyst for our ascending evolution as a society.
How can we put a dent in the climate change thing? Let's switch to all nuclear. Wow, that also solves our energy crisis and it is far more efficient. Let's have us some electric vehicles. Wouldn't you know Tesla and other car companies are swiftly making progress there. The energy required to power these things is easier to supply with nuclear plants. I don't think I could say the same for gasoline. Then we can kindly tell the saudis to go fuck themselves.
>>81364797
>scientists are obviously just lying to us
>I am the true authority on what is really happening
>>81365125
>Wow, that also solves our energy crisis and it is far more efficient. Let's have us some electric vehicles. Wouldn't you know Tesla and other car companies are swiftly making progress there. The energy required to power these things is easier to supply with nuclear plants.
Meanwhile people in China/3rd world are going strong on coal still. Or are we gonna buy Teslas for all of them? Or just take away their coal and let millions die?
>>81365199
Yes ignore the data, 97% scientists wouldn't lie, just whatever you do don't look at the data!!!!!!!!
>>81349371
HOW CAN YOU STILL DENY THIS!??
>>81364525
>>NASA and every scientific institution on Earth running AGW models have also missed their predictions
>Source?
Your own graph. The section I took a screenshot of and attached is NOT what the GCMs predicted. It's a leveling off that should have never happened if AGW theory is correct.
>Partly true, CO2 is still a capable GHG
No. It's not. Not in the amounts we're talking about.
>and you need to realize that as CO2 levels rise, so do other GHGs, as per example, with ice caps melting, tons of methane is being released into the air. And methane is a very powerful GHG.
You need to realize that a +1.2C change is no where near enough to actually "melt the ice caps" or release all of the methane that some people are worried about.
>>The benefits to plant life, and therefore the entire biosphere, from having more CO2 greatly exceed any negatives from a planet with a 1.2C warmer average temperature.
>This is a joke, right? I addressed your other points because they were reasonable, but please tell me this is a joke.
You're a joke if you think that A) +1.2C is damaging, or B) plant life does not thrive with higher CO2.
>>81364525
>It won't happen overnight. It's a long process. Several decades perhaps.
That same old tired refrain.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/02/the-big-list-of-failed-climate-predictions/
>>81365395
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/global-warming.php
>Global mean sea level has been rising at an average rate of 1.7 mm/year (plus or minus 0.5mm) over the past 100 years,
>Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point
Don't look at the data,
>>81365755
>It'll stop increasing at 1.2C
welp
>>81349371
The benefits of cheap and plentiful energy now far out weight the drawbacks of climate change.
>>81365817
That's ocean temperature we're talking atmospheric temperature.
Or do you think CO2 goes into the Ocean?
>Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
Inactive volcanoes also make a huge contribution, what are we gonna do to stop that?
>>81365395
Well what can we do about the Chinese?
That's shifting goal posts. We can't control the retard Chinaman but we can control ourselves.
So lets say the Chinaman continues to ruin their environment which does have an effect on the world climate, if we decide that we just throw our arms up in the air, we just exaccerbate that problem as opposed to doing what we can.
Chinese bastards steal our tech all the time anyway. It's only a matter of time before they have their own Tesla ehem "Tesra" OC don't steal.
>>81365803
>unsourced article from "wattsupwiththat"
>>81353565
Link it
>>81366025
>We can't control the retard Chinaman but we can control ourselves.
Yes let's cripple ourselves economically while China goes full steam industry spewing CO2, good idea. I'm sure after we're sufficiently weaker than them we'll be able to convince them to stop using coal.
You do know that Canada spent BILLIONS in 2015 on renewable energy yet less than 2% of their energy output comes from renewable sources.
You think BILLIONS$$$$ is worth a 2% change in energy? Do you think that will help the climate?
>>81350215
>>81350682
>he fell for the university meme
>>81365034
And the award for
"most retarded comment of the day"
goes to...
This guy!
Thanks for playing everybody, have a good night
>>81366018
>That's ocean temperature we're talking atmospheric temperature.
We're generally talking about heat. What do you think has a higher heat capacity, air or water?
CO2 indeed goes into the ocean via gas exchange. http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/file/CO2+Flux+Map
>>81366018
Jesus fucking christ. This post of stupidity. Do you really think global warming doesn't affect the oceans? How do you think HEAT works? Water heats up faster. That's why you can walk out in 120 degree weather but get burned from 120 degree water.
I can't believe this post. Additionally, there's something called the water cycle. The water in the atmosphere at one point of time came from the oceans and will go back into them thanks to this.
>muh volcanoes
Well I guess since they exist we're free to add to the problem right?
>>81364878
You're so biased in this ridiculous doomsday theory that it is criminal that anyone would even submit a paper for your review. That's how the process is subverted: make sure the reviewers are dogmatic shills.
>>81366282
>technology will never improve
We would still be riding horses if you people had your say 200 years ago.
>>81366577
>>81366610
We're talking atmospheric temperature and these losers bring in ocean temperatures, just goes to show they'll try anything to prove the Earth's temperature is rapidly changing when it's clearly not.
>>81366732
Oh technology will improve, not by giving our government billions of dollars tho.
>>81366617
It's not a doomsday theory. It's fact. If we continue this cycle of emitting GHG's into the atmosphere for the next few centuries the Earth WILL go into more advanced stages of global warming. People who can't fathom this baffle me. It's common sense.
>>81366987
>People who can't fathom this baffle me. It's common sense.
Inactive volcanoes contribute to more than 10% of our CO2 output. What are we gonna do about that?
>>81350682
>Climate change is a thing
Climate change is shit.
All we get are 'maybe', 'probably', or 'could result' from the warmists. The reality is that nothing out of the ordinary is happening AND temps are actully starting to decrease.
Its all part of the cycle boys Just part of a cycle.
>>81366874
Even if we accept the fallacy that global warming only affects the oceans, does that suddenly make it okay?
>>81366617
>that it is criminal that anyone would even submit a paper for your review
That's not how peer-review works, buddy. Scientists submit a publication to a journal and usually suggest reviewers who are familiar with that specific field of research. The journal (editors) decide whether to follow that suggestion or not. Neither I, nor any other scientist doing reviews, has ever asked to review a specific publication. The reviewers generally are anonymous to the authors of the publication.
Nobody is paid for reviewing articles, and every scientist does it. That's why they call peer-review.
>>81367229
How do you know it only affects oceans? I thought it was supposed to affect our atmosphere the most? Which is it?
![SPICE_SRM_overview[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/kPtiU0B.jpg "SPICE_SRM_overview[1].jpg")
obviously what we need to do is dump barium and aluminum into the sky
>>81367114
We don't need to do anything about that. If that number goes up drastically, whether from us or from nature, then we need to do something about that.
>>81366282
>cripple ourselves economically
Nuclear energy is so efficient. And the modern advances have made it even better. We can have both clean energy, surplus, and independence without crippling ourselves economically. Quite the opposite. You seem real hung up on cynicism. Just accept that we are sitting on a gold mine and we're gonna be walking on sunshine.
You want an example of a country who went nuclear. Look at France who gets 80% of their energy from nuclear and exports their surplus to the other European countries.
>>81367372
So the volcanoes putting CO2 into the air is okay but it's not okay when humans do it?
Climate change is absolutely real. Whether or not CO2 has a linear impact is debated.
To deny this because "MUH SCIENCE" is dumb. We should cherish our environment.
We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.
>>81367379
>We can have both clean energy, surplus, and independence without crippling ourselves economically.
No we can't.
>>81367353
t. Matrix
>>81366874
>We're talking atmospheric temperature and these losers bring in ocean temperatures
What specifically makes you prefer the atmospheric temperature reservoir and ignore the large body of high heat-capacity material we call oceans?
>>81367353
it's actually what is being done.
>>81366282
It's a bit criminal for sure. Now they are pushing the electric car and tons of enormous batteries that need to charge on a strained aging grid. I think there is great ignorance along with nefarious agendas at work, but future of the chimp is grim any way you slice it. Without fossil fuel there never would have been 7 billion chimps in the first place. By 2100 or so, when all the easy goo is gone and EROEI is a big zero I am thinking, 1 to 2 billion chimps at most, that's without nuclear war, mass famines or plagues, like best case scenario.
>>81367470
Agreed, until:
>we must do this by giving the government billions of dollars
>>81367352
Are you daft? I said "even if we accept the fallacy". A fallacy is a false belief. The argument that it only affects oceans is false and even if it wasn't, it would still be an issue.
The fact is, our atmosphere and the oceans are affected by each other. Arbitrarily increase the temperature in one and the other will increase as well. Global warming is increasing the temp. in both.
>>81367517
Google "Nuclear Energy". Look at France. A majority of their energy comes from Nuclear Fusion.
>>81367517
You're right. Now I see the error of my ways. Forgive me senpaichi.
>>81367565
Prove that CO2 is the only aspect affecting ocean temperatures.
That's why we're talking atmosphere, less variables.
>>81349371
oh look, deluded old not-a-scientist guy is basing his opinions on irrational suppositions and groupthink ideology. shocking.
Huh... Really makes you think.
>>81365803
>Connection not secured
>wattsupwiththat.com
Pic related
>>81365755
>Your own graph. The section I took a screenshot of and attached is NOT what the GCMs predicted. It's a leveling off that should have never happened if AGW theory is correct.
I still don't see the source of the supposed AGW predictions. I'm not saying you're wrong, but show me earlier climate models from scientific institutions that have wrongly predicted temperature increase anomalies?
>No. It's not. Not in the amounts we're talking about.
Yes it is. 1% increase of CO2 makes all the difference.
>You need to realize that a +1.2C change is no where near enough to actually "melt the ice caps" or release all of the methane that some people are worried about.
The fuck? Yes it is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_emissions
>A) +1.2C is damaging
It is fucking damaging. I've posted the same link 3 times to prove it.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php
>B) plant life does not thrive with higher CO2.
Yeah, you're obviously joking here. You're acting like a higher concentration of CO2 has no effect on the ecosystem of said plants. Plus too much CO2 IS actually harmful for plants.
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/6/1960.full
>>81367611
He didn't say that.
>>81367432
Do you not understand the combination?
The Earth has been handling volcanoes just fine for a billion years, that's why we aren't worried about it.
Hmmmm............
>>81367566
no those are just "experiments" there aren't any chemtrails conspiracy theorist /sarcasm
>>81367379
>thinks he is going to convince any Westerner of nuclear energy
>doesn't realize "clean" energy in the West refers to solar panels and wind mills
However, on the topic of China, they already are investing in nuclear, and have more plants in power now than us, with several more planned.
>>81367775
That's the implication of this entire thread.
Right now we cannot solve these problems, giving government billions of dollars to 'fix' climate change is a scam.
>>81367811
So why are we worried about humans putting CO2 in the air when volcanoes do the same thing?
>>81367517
Nuclear energy > coal. There's just a stigma over anything nuclear.
>>81367688
Okay, if we're playing that game, prove the increase of ocean temp. isn't because of CO2.
>>81367688
>Prove that CO2 is the only aspect affecting ocean temperatures.
It's 11pm here, I had a rough day at the office, so I'll take me a bit to fire up the old cluster and get working.
Just out of morbid curiosity, in what form or shape would you like to have that proof presented? Apparently data and scientific publications aren't really allowed, so how would such proof look like?
>>81368020
>prove the increase of ocean temp. isn't because of CO2.
Can't prove a negative, but other variables such as waste run off, pollution, and polar landmasses affect the ocean's temperature year to year.
>>81366987
So now the time scale is in centuries. You are shifty little fuckers, I'll hand you that.
Your religious scientificity is unfalsifiable. Your faith in it is a kind of fanaticism that the state of the evidence does not deserve.
It feels like talking to a born again christian.
>>81367957
Because the COMBINATION INCREASES our CURRENT level of CO2 in a DANGEROUSLY HIGH level.
Not sure why you can't understand this,
>>81367902
No, the government can easily help by investing all the money they give to Saudi for oil into alternative energy,
>>81368143
>Apparently data and scientific publications aren't really allowed, so how would such proof look like?
I just named some other causes of ocean temperature, pollution, run off, polar land masses shifting, etc. That's why we're talking ATMOSPHERIC temp not OCEAN temp.
But the reason you don't want to discuss ATMOSPHERIC temp is because the data does not back up what you're saying
>>81349371
Pollution is still real. Limited supply of oil is still real. Who cares whether climate change is real or not, when it has the same solution to many demonstrably real problems? We need to become a clean and sustainable society, the earlier we do it the better.
I would much rather have an energy supply based on renewable energy than Saudi/Russian controlled oil.
>>81367902
>giving government billions of dollars to 'fix' climate change is a scam
That's mightily cheap compared to the other scams. Putting money into numerical weather prediction and earth observing systems isn't too much of a waste, I think - again, compared to the other shit we pay for.
Global warmers praise the Paris accords as the fix to the problem. Still are freaking out.
God they are an exhausting bunch, just fuck off.
Everyone knows its a fucking joke but pander to you fuck wads for votes.
>>81368218
>pollution, waste run off
That's kinda what we're talking about right now.. So what is your point?
>>81368339
>Because the COMBINATION INCREASES our CURRENT level of CO2 in a DANGEROUSLY HIGH level.
So if a volcano goes off and sends 50% of our human waste CO2 in the air does that mean we need to shut down volcanoes? INACTIVE VOLCANOES cause just a tiny fraction of what an erupting volcano does.
>>81367902
No not at all you read into that.
We've been arguing whether or not it is real for a while now. You can't even get to the "how do we plan to deal with it?" phase until we decide its even a legitimate concern.
Either way man, read the sticky. Logical fallacy degrades board discussion.
>>81368413
>Putting money into numerical weather prediction and earth observing systems
>solve the problem
>nope
>spend billions to observe
Thanks government you really know what to do with my tax dollars.
>>81368388
oil has 500+ years of supply. Don't confuse reserves (readibly available oil) versus oil in place. And getting rid of carbon over night will ruin our economy.
>>81368250
It's always been long term. Nobody credible said it was going to happen overnight.
>>81368483
>>81368518
Non-CO2 waste.
The oceans have too many variables that's why we discuss atmospheric temps, but then the data doesn't back up the doomsdayers so they prefer to talk about oceans.
>>81356450
CO2 has a logarithmic effect on heat.
Also, active volcanoes fuck up everyone's green efforts every time one goes boom.
Also the 97% thing is a meme. That was only 97% of the scientists that even took a position. A total of 66% didn't even take a position. Literal statistical manipulation.
I will say that there are efforts to be made to prevent waste and pollution. We DO need to take care of our planet because it's the only one we have, but it pissues me off when climate change is used as an emotional/intellectual appeal to shut someone up about islam or to attack their intelligence.
>>81368530
If that happens, then yes we are fucked. We can't do shit about it. And it has happened in the Earth's past. Super-massive volcano eruptions sent the Earth spiraling into an Ice Age many times in the past.
>>81368599
No I agree with you, it's not a legit concern - yet our governments spend billions on it anyways. That's the fucking problem.
>Joe Six-pack from Missouri tries to debunk the work of thousands of eminent climatologists and their consensus
>>81368691
>>81350682
No he doesn't, jackass
>>81368483
pic has no link to human actions whatsoever.
even if it did, that is a minute change compared to historical temperature variation.
>>81367208
>>81349371
>>81368987
>consensus matters more than data
sorry I'll stick with the facts, enjoy your emotional arguments. The Earth is not warming at anywhere near the rate predicted by these losers, why should I believe anything they say, when the data doesn't even support what they say?
>>81368987
praise science
>>81368723
>the only cause of global warming we produce is CO2
Okay.
>>81360577
they're no good
just kill them all
they'll never learn
>>81369379
Name another thing we produce that causes global warming.
>>81361760
No masters, just a BS.
>>81349371
bill nye, the bachelors degree only guy, can kiss my doctorate ass
Yeah your right warmists, a "climate scientist" has no incentive to create hysteria that funnels billions into his field.
Well done, well done.
>>81369311
The data supports it idiot. I've shown you this numerous times.
>>81369080
This is pro-climate change denier since it shows all the predictions made by these fags are bullshit
>>81369455
animal farts create methane, that is worse per unit for global warming if you believe their religion/science.
>>81368646
Don't worry, we still keep sinking those trillions into Iraq and the Saudis.
>>81369599
No it doesn't it shows minute changes that do not reflect the predictions of climate scientists.
>>81367345
>Neither I, nor any other scientist doing reviews, has ever asked to review a specific publication.
I never asserted otherwise. I never asserted you were paid. You're just setting up obfuscations here. The point is, your unqualified dogmatic faith in this tenuous theory is a guarantee that you will reject all arguments to the contrary at the outset.
You would be Mikey Mann's go to shill for the guaranteed result.
>>81349371
I really want to fuck SE Cupp
>>81369455
Methane?
>>81369877
>There's changes but they don't match the scientists predictions
>Therefore those changes are obviously not happening and the scientists are lying
climate change is a euphemism for population control
>>81369850
At least we get a product from them. Lol
climate scientists dont make anything
>>81370047
>the scientists lied about the change
>but we should totally still trust them
>even when the data doesnt back them up
>>81370092
>oil is made by Saudis
>alternative energy doesn't exist
>>81369909
>The point is, your unqualified dogmatic faith in this tenuous theory is a guarantee that you will reject all arguments to the contrary at the outset.
I'm sure you believe that. I've recommended one gw-skeptic paper to be published, I know of colleagues who did the same. It must be a fog of paranoia that follows people, thinking you can't find publications that question model predictions or the like.
I'm guessing it's much more comfortable to live in a state of mind where something exciting as a global conspiracy is actually happening.
>>81349999
/thread
Our planets climate has changed thousands upon thousands of times over the course of the last 4-5 billion years.
Fucking leftists are suddenly realizing the climate changes and are trying to cash in with leftist solar cells manufactured in China.
The planets climate changes with us or without us it still changes.
There is no fucking way to eliminate billions of cars, billions of cattle, sheep, goats, billions of humans all consuming and creating waste and green house gasses.
Our population will only continue to increase and the elites will demand the plebeians eat insects and soilent green, while the rich elites dine on fine wines and steaks.
Our future depends on getting off this pile of shit rock, leaving the shit skins and leftists behind and colonizing other planets.
We are gambling that we will get off this planet before it is destroyed.
Our goal is not to have a long term investment here.
We are to inherit the trillions of suns and their planets, not this fucking shit rock.
>>81370215
It wasn't a fucking lie idiot. They were wrong. Their predictions were off. But the data confirms they were on the right track. Holy shit are you muslim?
Quit saying the data doesn't back them up. All the data points to increases.
>>81370223
What product have we gotten from our gov who spends billions on climate change
In all seriousness:
Do you think global warming will lead to eugenics and population control?
The elite seem to believe it and that seems like the only reasonable way to "solve" it if we decrease global population by 95%.
I hate global warming believers but support eugenics as a way to stop falling IQ levels.
>>81370223
>>alternative energy doesn't exist
>implying alternative energy is relevant
>is affordable
>is sustainable
>is easy to adopt
>is efficient
lol
>>81370390
Why are you so retarded?
>>81370343
>they lied or were wrong
>but we still need to trust em
>even though our climate has not changed drastically as they threatened
I'll trust them when the data matches their predictions
>>81370392
>Do you think global warming will lead to eugenics and population control?
Can only hope so. Look at all the dweebs running around. Reducing humanity to 1.5 billion or so would be a start.
>>81370228
I don't think of you as a conspiracist. I think of you as a dupe.
I don't understand why you fucking 'murricans about this bullshit so much.
Even if climate changes fast enough that it's going to severely affect humanity in the next few generations, so what? Are you going to stop polluting air with industry churning out mountains of unnecessary consumerist garbage? Of course you're fucking not, the entire modern humanity existence is focused on consuming thousands brands of chocolate bars and boner pills and anything else you're willing to spend "money" on.
