Any AGW skeptics out there?
>>24651468
why the FUCK is it going right to left
>>24651468
a lot
but you cant voice it.
OBEY
DO NOT QUESTION
IF YOU QUESTION, YOU ARE ANTI SCIENCE, ANTI PROGRESS, AND ON PAR WITH HOLOCAUST IDEALISTS
97% OF THE SCIENTISTS WHO WERE PAYED TO AGREE WITH US AGREE WITH US
>>24651518
Some graphs are like that...weird I know.
>>24651705
Yep. Accurate!
>>24651518
they measured it in the amount of time from the present
>>24651705
meant to say denialists, but that is apparently not a word
Bio major here
The skeptics have no viable data
>>24651813
Well, not in the way alarmists use it.
Real denier: Someone who thinks the Holocaust was a lie
Skeptic: somebody who is skeptical that man has a massive influence on climate
>>24651705
>.gif
Nice try.
>>24651843
Funny! I've got a master's in bio!
No real data you say? Here's a small tidbit:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
my degree is literally everything to do with this, both from a physical and Earth-systems aspect and the contentious sociopolitical stuff
throw your evidence at me senpai, there is literally nothing the sceptics have
muh
natural
cycle
>>24651914
Oh wow you sure showed me
Too bad most of those are bullshit and disproven.
And sure you have a masters
Id trust the Phds over your persona non grata ass
It's true there are cycles of temperature.
However, when you look at greenhouse gas emissions and at their effects on the environment, you can see we're definitely causing climate change.
>>24651914
>Masters in Bio
>Have easiest acess to data that proves climate change and still denies it
Bet youre a creationist too
>>24651985
What's your degree then? Also, did you even take a chance to read the entire page?
"Criticism: Some papers on the list have been debunked, discredited or refuted.
Rebuttal: The existence of a criticism does not make it true. Rebuttals to published peer-reviewed criticisms of a paper are included on the list as supplemental papers following the original. These rebuttals either completely refute the original criticism or correct for legitimate errors and show that these do not affect their original conclusions. It is not reasonable to expect these authors to waste their time responding to every alarmist blog post or comment made against their paper(s) on the Internet. Yet, according to AGW proponents peer-reviewed papers that do not agree with their alarmist position on climate change are either wrong or do not exist. This resource was created to correct this myth."
Literally right before the papers.
>>24652018
Oh really? That's not what this graph says.
>>24652133
have you read any of the papers senpai topkek
>>24652133
>Myth
The majority of research disagrees with you
Your "Masters" is worth its weight in toilet paper
>>24652131
LOL no. Fucking creationists! They're hilarious. Nah, I'm not a creationist. And I don't deny anything either. I follow the data. Not the media.
>>24652171
Senpai, I have and it ain't rosy. The global warming skeptics cite each others papers in one big circlejerk. If anyone is pal-reviewing, it's your side
>>24652219
>I follow the data
Lol, you obviously dont
>>24652186
Majority of research? Are you alluding to the 97% consensus...because I have some bad news.
>>24652253
Um, yeah, I do. Many scientists do. And the data says that our current temps aren't "unprecedented".
>>24652254
Oh boy, that one guy who was paid by oil companies to shill made a paper? Tell me more
>>24651914
>masters in bio
spotted the (unemployed) idiot
>>24651468
this shit looks like it was made in excel in three seconds
source or sincerely kill yourself
>>24652321
Unemployed? No. Fishery Biologist? Yes. Not a climate related field, I'll admit, but still an Earth Science nonetheless.
ITT: OP tries to bait and fails
>>24652170
Look at your own graph. The average temperature began at about -0.2 and ended at about 0.4.
>>24652355
>Not a climatologist
OPINION DISCARDED
I'm OP and I suck a ton of dicks desu
How do we stop Global Warming?
>>24652338
Attacking the graph itself not the data.
>>24652506
Hey fuck off you're not OP, I'm OP
>>24652338
>>24652506
>asks for source
>not attacking the data
>>24652355
I'm an environmental engineer. Your degree has nothing to do with climate change at all
>>24652400
Yet I bet you would quote one of these fellas.
>>24652506
yeah that guy's a dumb kek
but the graph is still shit at evidencing whatever argument you're trying to use
the timeframe is so wide that the resolution does not allow us to see the current spike we're experiencing in the lat 200 years or so
sure, past interglacials have been at higher temps, but what really matters is the RATE OF CHANGE we're experiencing
it's not natural senpai
>>24652555
You said it looks like it was made in excel, not "HEY WHERE'S DA SOURCE?!"
>>24652594
I bet you'd quote some debunked data provided by think tanks with a bias while claiming you have a degree
OH WAIT
>>24652560
We must look at the whole picture buddy...
stfu with arguing over graphs anyway
anybody can stitch a graph together to show whatever it is they want to 'prove'
>>24651468
no, greenhouse gases trap heat, carbon is a greenhouse gas, people produce lots of carbon.
logically you cant disprove this, you can argue about exactly how climate is going to change, but you cant argue against the basic theory.
>>24652560
im T pain, and I support OP
>>24652684
this effectively
what exactly is their argument anyway?
>>24652684
B-B-BUT THIS GRAPH
MUH GRAPHS
>>24651705
Why would the jews support climate change?
Just think about it
If anything the jews/capitalists would support the deniers that keep oil oligopolies in power
>>24652684
OP is arguing the degree of which the carbon produced by humans traps heat
dirt+Water=mud
Mud=bad
Mud in pool=bad
So if I drop one pinch of dirt in a pool, I ruin the pool, and it requires $22 billion of government aid.
>>24652679
there are other gases besides co2
>>24652732
Stop it
You're using logic
>>24652757
More like
>Dump a bucket of mud into pool every year for decades
>Pool becomes dirtier and dirtier over time
>"lol wasn't us"
>>24652763
>>24652732
climate change activists only stop the building of oil sites in the US, which would allow small businesses to develop.
They have no problem with midE oil
and they dont like nuclear for some reason
Welp, this is what I get for trying to have a civilized conversation ON FUCKING 4CHAN.
yeah MODS DELETE MY THREAD PLEASE
>>24652806
Honestly nuclear seems fine if you reprocess the waste like France
it has no negative climate effects
>>24652821
>Being a denialist when you lie about a degree to get an appeal to authority and use debunked studies and graphs
>Civilized
You deserve all the shit you get
>>24652792
The pool is not dirty. That is what the graphs are saying.
The graphs say that every year a little dust storm blows by and puts a little dirt in the pool, but it is not a large amount, and such a small amount of it is ours it does not matter, and is not worth the government aid
maybe if you wanted civilized conversation you could've used a less shit graph
>>24652821
>le i'm teh smartest, tehse keks are all dumbfuks nobody beliefs me i kno the truf doe
>>24652866
>Muh cherrypicked graphs that were debunked or innacurate
>>24652855
Exactly. Just like Hydrocarbons.
>>24652757
no, ther is no
>the degree of which the carbon produced by humans traps heat
greenhouse gases trap heat, carbon is a greenhouse gas, people produce lots of carbon
there is no way around it
i agree i dont want to give al gore all my money but we dont fucking have to baka http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/07/12/201502003/episode-472-the-one-page-plan-to-fix-global-warming
>>24652901
gr8 b8 m8
This is an orginal comment
>>24652896
debunk them
prove their inaccuracy
Thats what OP is trying to do
Saying something is bad is not proof of it being bad, even if the whole world says it is bad
Any DU boys here?
>>24652946
They've already been debunked
Sorry you can't keep up I guess
>>24652926
We produce such a small amount it is not relevent to any significant climate change.
Black is proven to trap more heat. Therfore, we need a plan to wear less black
>>24652935
Thats what were here to talk about
>>24652850
>gets BTFO'd in his own thread
>mods delete pl0x
>>24652977
I think everyone knew this was a b8 thread
And even so OP got BTFO and didn't even claim he was being retarded
>>24652961
I dont care what you say, I care about proof.
Give me proof
I think OP ditched and I cant handle the normie horde.
>>24652946
Yeah I just got fuckin' raided so many responses couldn't keep up. Damn post time... XD
>>24653005
OP ditched because he has no proof aside from debunked graphs and studies
So, what phenomenon do you skeptics have to describe rising sea levels and desertification?
I don't really get how you can be an AGW skeptic unless you purposefully consume only one side of the story.
Conspiracy-theory thinking in action I guess.
>>24652977
i see senpai, well allow me to retort
>>24653027
>debunked
Yet I still havent gotten a rebuttal. But hey, what do I know? I guess I'm just a lil bitch who ditched his thread (even though I'm still responding).
>>24653068
>I post debunked data
>Hurr where is rebuttal?
>>24653036
the jews lead their sewage into the oceans, leading to rising sea levels
>>24653036
The same as you. I just believe we don't cause very much of it.
>>24652926
Fuck off shithead
>>24653077
It's a valid request.
Wow this thread has gotten outta hand.
>>24653068
what the fuck even was your original argument? that past intergalcials have had higher temps? of course they had, the planet was in a different orbital context and earth system processes are always shifting aorund e.g. ocean circulation patterns
what matters is what's going on currently
the rate of change is unprecedented and inexplicable unless factoring human influence
Try to explain climate change now.
Protip: You can't.
>>24653167
But that's the thing...it isn't unprecedented. Temps are dropping since the peak of the last interglacial. It's just showing the natural cycle. Our climate always changes, but people are crying "GLOBAL WARMING" just like they did about global cooling in the 70s.
>>24653208
Once again, look at the past. Our climate works in cycles...
obviously the only way to combat man made climate change is to create a carbon tax
fuck you stupid bible thumping republiTHUGS who are so anti-science you cant even see that its 2015
C A R B O N
T
A
X
>>24653259
>carbon
>ctax
?
>>24653217
>but people are crying "GLOBAL WARMING" just like they did about global cooling in the 70s.
hmmm
hmmmmmm
>>24653217
yeah
but we're perturbing this natural cycle of gradual cooling into the next glacial
hockey stick graph - phat spike since following the industrial revolution
a jump this big only happens if there's a big reshuffling of circulation patterns or other huge events i.e. neo-catastrophism
>>24653259
Lol I ain't even a republican bro
>>24653344
meant to link this, but the pepe's still relevant desu
>>24653098
So you take issue with the anthropogenic aspect?
It's not like it matters if it's anthropogenic or not, because nobody takes it seriously in such a way that some observable impact would be seen
>>24653344
Hockey stick? You mean the graph that erased the MPD and the LIA?
well, sorry fellas I had fun but i gotta get to the bed. wife's waiting for me ;)
>>24653362
b-but climate works in c-cycles
>>24653384
going to bed now senpai
yeah the graph is in fact a bit shit, look at the rror bars, smooths everything over because it just collates all evidence
the end bit stands out b/c that's when we have remote sensing and such and so proxies dont need to be used
but yeah c u bois in the morning
nearly 3 ffs
was going to get an early night for once 2nite as well
kikes
>>24651920
>he never responded
>>24653098
so your argument is that we shouldn't stop producing carbon because the carbon we produce has no affect on the climate even though we know carbon affects the climate?
>>24651468
OP GOT BTFO
>>24652821
>>24652850
C A N T
H A N D L E
D A
B A N T Z
>really though, kill yourself mr masters of kekoldry
I'm not a master of geography, how do you measure the temperature of earth from hundred thousands year ago?
I've always believed in man made GW but now I doubt
>>24653442
No she isn't.
You live alone
You're a smelly fisherman with no friends, pretending you know shit about climate science. Throw yourself in the god damn river you smelly fisher scum.
>>24653687
you go on 4chan and make a dubs decide post
>>24653687
>>24653699
>op is posting without his OP trip.
Yeah, nice try faggot.
QUICK GUYS WE NEED A WW3 SO WE CAN HANDLE THIS GLACIAL ERAwhateverthefuckidk.
>>24653699
yeah I always trust retards on 4chan over people who actually know what they're talking about
>>24654296
why should I trust those people? All men are liars
