>smoking and secondhand smoke is unhealthy
>global warming is contributed by man/man made
>vaccines are never harmful
>just listen and believe you guys
Why are most scientists now total retards? Is it liberalism?
>>7721286
>>smoking and secondhand smoke is unhealthy
>>global warming is contributed by man/man made
It's absurd to say either of these is completely false, it's just a matter of extent.
>>vaccines are never harmful
Literally no scientist says this. What they do say is that the benefits outweigh the risks.
>>7721286
But this year is going to be the warmest ever recorded.
>>7721296
>It's absurd to say either of these is completely false, it's just a matter of extent
The extent is so ludicrously small that it is irrelevant, especially for second/firsthand smoking. It has scientists who obviously hate it making he rules, but those who like smoking have actually proven that it isn't bad for you and is only bad for a very small number of genetically weak people.
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2013/09/turning-smokers-into-criminals.html?m=1
>Literally no scientist says this. What they do say is that the benefits outweigh the risks.
A lot of them say that even spacing apart the number of vaccines a child gets and at what age they get them isn't necessary, even though probably it is.
>>7721286
>@reagan.com
good thing we have a total cocksucker from a fan club website spreading expertise on global warming
> the climate is not changing for the bad; it actually snowed in miami!!
>>7721286
haha this guy again
I remember you from the climate change denying thread.
>http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2013/09/turning-smokers-into-criminals.html?m=1
yeah an opinion piece thinking the exact ideas you're parroting - what a coincidence
Where does he cite the acceptable levels of any of the 'toxins' he claims come from second hand smoke? Where does he cite the irrelevance in what he presumes is a 'small number' for atmospheric levels, and where does he get the 0.39%?
I mean you don't care about evidence so let me just ask you one thing, why do you care about what scientists say?
You don't so don't talk about it.
>>7721318
The image was the closest thing I could find illustrating the alarmist crap in science. I think maybe disputing what's in the OP is more important than ripping apart a political cartoon.
>>7721337
just to reaffirm how stupid people like you are, who refuse to examine the evidence for themselves ( which has been around since 1950s including 2nd hand smoking data previously referred to as smoking households - inside smoking was ubiquitous ) let's cherry pick a quote from one of the comments,
"Thank you for your excellent article. Al, smoking may be smelly and/or disgusting but the contention that it will kill you is dubious. I suppose it's an endless debate. There are 100 year old folks who smoke. "
I'm honestly convinced you're a shill, or an idiot, for the writers of the books in the article.
>>7721337
Michael Mcfadden is a scientist who actually uses statistics and actual toxicity levels to disprove a lot of the smoking and secondhand smoke fears stated by scientists who likely have a personal distaste for smoking.
He had a website explaining more, but It's currently down, unfortunately.
>>7721345
Where's a link to the data you're referring to? Hopefully not the pueblo/Helena one...
>>7721286
>Record cold
>De-mother-fucking-cember 15th
>51 Degrees
Fuck you
>>7721355
Daff, M.E., Doll, R. & Kennaway, E.L. (1951). Cancer of the Lung IN relation to tobaco. British Journal of cancer5(1):1-20.
I can't seem to find the other paper I had that cited household statistics paper :-(
I found a semi-decent article detailing evidence from even further back.
And there is recent evidence that small scale long term exposure to chemicals such as arsenic and fluoride does cause incremental damage to your body, which I'm just going to interpolate to the various chemicals in smoking because I can (benzene, arsenic, nitrosamines) specially because there are more TNSAs in second hand smoke... I will look further.
https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2013/12/11/1939-74-years-ago-smoking-causes-cancer-drs-alton-ochsner-sr-and-michael-debakey/
>>7721390
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3639351/
so this is the fucking best i could get out of pubmed so far, which is a great example of what you purport as reality - that confounding factors are immense when you're trying to account for second hand smoke exposure. I wish more 60s journals were online, as I'm sure I read a study looking specifically at household exposure to smoking and incidence of bronchial cancer as a retrospective.
I'm not saying that statistically more sound methods might render second hand smoke difficult to analyze, but saying modern second hand smoking studies would even begin to quantify the effects in the home or pub smoking would have is specious at best. The exposures would be widely different. If this Mcfadden statistician has good results why can't you link me them?
>>7721286
Do you have any actual data to bring? Or is this just another "lololol prove me wrong" troll thread?
>>7721390
oh god, "allergies and tobacco smoke have at least something of a questionable relationship at any level: allergens tend to be protein-based and, if my understanding of them is correct, would tend to be destroyed by burning" -mcFadden
1 we don't know how allergy begins or is maintained, we have only speculated the origin in bmemory cells and observed the mechanism of acute inflammation and mast-cell release reaction. No one understands allergies, and no smoking doesn't fucking burn up all the protein or clearly you wouldn't see anything but water vapor - you see smoke. Even if it got the majority of particulates it would STILL LEAVE MANY EVEN SMALLER PEPTIDES WHICH ARE MORE LIABLE TO CAUSE ALLERGY IN CHRONIC EXPOSURE. Peptides are what are registered/physically imbued into the immune system as the biomarker to select for immune reactions.
his comment on ethyl-alchol is equally as specious, "1,000 milligrams of that vapor into the air in the space of an hour". One we have been in exposure to alcohol for almost as long as we have been animals (fruitfly is where we developed the genes) and they have been selected for strongly in recent evolution, so we are well equipped to deal with alcohol exposure. That being said no one denies the exposure of alcohol and cancer - it is well established, and subject to the same laws that cigarrettes are in most cases - in my country you are not allowed to drink out doors :D
Again, these points have absolutely nothing to do with his expertise - fucking statistics! Where are the comparisons between smokers incidence rates and non-smokers? How do the data from 100 years ago compare to the relatively smoke free previous 30 years?
Bullshitting about mechanisms of action is what non-scientists or wannabes do, trust me I am one.
he honestly sounds like a shill - give me his book for free and i'll read it
>>7721419
>If this Mcfadden statistician has good results why can't you link me them?
He's a chemist that calculates how much the average person would have to be exposed to in order to actually suffer any ill effects from smoking - which is far more than anyone is exposed to in their lifetime, apparently.
His website had some calculations, but it recently went down for some reason. I'm currently looking for studies that he co-authored.
>>7721442
>which is far more than anyone is exposed to in their lifetime
that's bull as even just smoking itself beyond cancer will make you lose weight and age you and rot your teeth.
>>7721315
>A lot of them say that even spacing apart the number of vaccines a child gets and at what age they get them isn't necessary, even though probably it is.
Do you have a citation for this claim?
>>7721457
Sorry, I meant exposed to secondhand smoke specifically, not smoking.
>>7721286
smoking LITERALLY has a fucking huge correlation with lung cancer you moron
>http://m.ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/5/1175.full
>>7721286
How the fuck can someone be retarded enough to deny climate change lol holy shit.
>>7721286
>just believe and listen
alright just cite some studies disproving those things listed?
>>7721442
god damnit you fuckers literally no idea ( both you and him ) how this shit works
and guess what, no one else does either! so speculating on magic threshold number afterwhich you accumulate negative effects is about as valid crystal healing and indigo children - its wild speculation! :D
if you are unlucky one exposure could alter a somatic cell line by affecting a SPM that will lead to fucking cancer, and its clear both of you have no inkling as to how the chemistry of DNA COULD be affected.
again that's not to say it would be but we still have no idea why some people get cancer ( for the most part ) and others don't, which is a great fucking counter example to any of these quantifiable arguments
like you fucking said, you retard, most centennials smoke
does that not imply they are anomalies to exposure rather than they are the rule we should follow logically to apply to the vast population?
man, if he isn't even a statistician i'm not bothering go any further into his diatribe
let it be known in sci that McFadden is a shill, and nothing more.
>>7721507
im honestly so mad i wasted any time on your bullshit.... fuck you op
>>7721315
>The extent is so ludicrously small that it is irrelevant,
That's a matter of perspective scale.
The distance which the continents move each year is pretty insignificant, and yet they have moved great distances over time.
Any imbalancing factor no matter how "irrelevant" may contribute significantly over time.
>>7721473
because none of the faggots pushing it want to use nuclear energy
>>7721286
This pic triggers me
>>7721286
>record cold
Seriously? This is one of the warmest Decembers on record in the Northeast.
>>7721286
Please go back to pol. A cancerous place where you belong.
It's not global warming, it's climate change faggot.
Smoking and secondhand smoke really, This is fucking bait
>>7721286
Like... Okay google.
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Greenhouse+gases
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=carcinogen
>>7721296
EPA went a bit overboard with the second hand smoke thing.
I'm a pretty heavy skeptic of global warming but holy christ why doesnt anyone understand the difference between weather and climate?
>>7721376
Unfortunately for you, it has been this hot during December less than 100 years ago.
>smoking and secondhand smoke is unhealthy
>global warming is contributed by man/man made
How about you go to China and asked them about those topics. But remember you might have a hard time hearing them on account that their mouths and noses are covered due shit air quality.
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/18/china-air-pollution-far-worse-than-thought-study.html
>introduce shittons of reactive chemicals into your body
>expect them not to react -> cause mutations
>>7721688
Oh god, I love it!
I'm in Illinois, and it's been looking like Silent Hill here for the past few weeks. It's like a lukewarm sauna.
FUCK WINTER. BURN SOME MORE GODDAMN DIESEL.
>>7722274
I hate you.
Fucking go. back. to pol.
It's made for you, why won't you just stay there and enjoy it? You can jerk eachother off about how you totally proved all the mean old sci hippies wrong. You can comfort eachother about the tax boogeyman coming to take your Hard Earned Money™. You can post all of your best memes with everything nicely labelled and laugh it up together.
Just fuck off from here.
>>7721286
cringe
>>7722278
Winter fucking sucks here. You fuckers up in NE get a bunch of pretty snow and the ocean to moderate things.
Every winter I'm just down here in like 20 fuckin layers because all we get is ice; on everything. Balls shattering cold and that's it.
Been unusually warm in the Midwest lately.
>>7721286
You will honestly deny the impact human beings have on the planet? How could it possibly be natural the amount of oil we burn into the atmosphere and the destruction we cause to the ecosystem. I think you overestimate the environment and stability of the planet.
I think I'm going to believe scientists, people who use logic and method to dig up data about these things as opposed to someone who as strong feelings about these topics. You are the total retard.
>>7721286
>falling for this
>>7721286
Too many liberal faggots who have never worked a day in their lives complaining about the heat inside their mcshitbox job after their mom kicked them out and are blaming it on global warming.
>>7721698
>ITT: people who can't average over a surface
>>7721315
>but those who like smoking have actually proven that it isn't bad for you
>implying they aren't biased
>>7722377
>I know some dumb liberals, therefore climate change is a lie!
>>7722869
Hey, even people who don't smoke can vouch for the longevity and lack of health problems of smokers. Even if they do smoke, how does it make them biased? That's like saying Kevin Folta's connection to Monsanto discredits anything good he says about Monsanto.
>>7721314
>this year is going to be the warmest ever recorded.
>this year is going to be roughly equal in temperature to a year decades ago, such that the error bars allow that it might be a hair warmer, although it might actually be cooler.
So now stability for decades proves global warming.
Note that reliable global temperature surface data is only a few decades old, during which time we've seen no significant warming. The instrumental record goes back further, but the methods and standards were too irregular to reliably estimate a global temperature.
>>7721337
>using the phrase "climate change denial"
>not an uneducated and indoctrinated faggot
pick one
Wow the quality of this board has really gone down the shitter
>>7721286
The pattern in general is that if some large group of non-scientists disagree with most scientists on some factual topic, the large group of people tends to be wrong. I'm not a climate change (climate change, not global warming) expert, but history is not on your side.
>this ebin b8 thread
>54 replies
>>7721286
yo washington was warm as fuck last winter
i bought a stevens pass season ticket and i'm still salty as fuck
>>7721358
this.
>>7723067
You're literally burning something and inhaling the smoke on purpose. You don't need a scientist to tell you that's bad for your lungs you retard.
>>7721812
They didn't just go overboard, they likely popularized the secondhand smoke scaremongering. They also have been known to greatly over exaggerate.
>>7723093
Exactly, this is why people don't take climate change pushing people seriously. The data completely goes against what people claim when they want to laughably push global warming/climate change as a serious issue when their predictions never happen.
>>7723222
The body begins to repair itself after someone is done smoking a cigarette. The effects of even long term exposure to secondhand smoke only harms people allergic to it, which is a very small number of people. Not only is secondhand smoke completely inconsequential to the lives of others, but based on that logic anything similar such as the chemicals in foods or couches or plastic would have the same effect. It would be pointless to avoid.
>>7723093
>So now stability for decades proves global warming.
>>7721286
>Why are most scientists now total retards?
They aren't. You disagree with them on some of those issues because in fact, you're the one that's wrong.
>Is it liberalism?
This is the source of the disagreement. You are politically conservative. You associate global warming with liberalism and reject it because you dislike liberalism/liberals, not for valid scientific reasons. You've just gone looking for a rationale in support of your ideological committment after the fact.
>>7723709
Valid arguments have been stated against climate change on this board and ITT, look harder.
>>7721507
>don't agree with someone's findings
>call him a shill
>Record Cold
Lmao what? Buffalo new York had record breaking amount software snow in November and December. The surrounding areas were without medication for weeks because the city was impassable in and out.
They have no recorded snow yet. Most of the region has had less than 2 inches of snow.
Denying climate change is borderline retarded.
mfw people are using data from the 1970s and onward to show that the climate is changing when Earth is over a billion years old.
>>7723728
Like what?
Quick question to climate change deniers. What evidence would it take for you to change your mind?
>>7724712
Nothing. Only the Lord himself would convince me otherwise. But of course, He know best that contemporary science is a liberal propaganda full of amoral, atheistic bullshit.
>>7721286
>Is it liberalism
pretty much
>>7723709
the problem with the left regarding global warming is threefold;
first, "global warming" itself is a misnomer, since the planet in many places is actually cooling significantly. hence, liberals shifted to "climate change".
second, the idea that climate change is primarily anthropogenic is bullshit
third, and most important; the idea that climate change can be stopped or will be stopped is foolish. you can't stop it. the best you can do is prepare to survive it, and it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
>>7721286
Kansas shouldn't be iced over. It's December and it's been 50 degrees out for almost two weeks.
>>7724712
The hot spot in the troposphere over the equator.
Untampered data (satellite data) showing significantly faster warming in the troposphere than surface temperatures. Pic related. Head of NASA GISS, Gavin Schmidt BTFO. That would be a good start.
And what plausible observation(s) would falsify Climate Change? Remember the theory is based on anthropogenic CO2 so it has to be causally connected to CO2, and clearly differentiated from normal climate/weather.
>nb4 CO2 not being a greenhouse gas. No one says its not. Earth not warming; no one says its hasn't warmed.
>>7724751
So one pedantic quibble and two arguments from incredulity.
Funny how conservatives keep revising their argument while pretending that's what they've said the entire time, like the news ministry out of 1984.
>global warming is a myth
later
>We've always said that global warming was real, but only that man made global warming is a myth
later
>We've always said man made global warming is real, but that the possibility of man reversing global warming is a myth!
later
>Well it's too late now so there's no point in playing the blame game. And if I recall correctly it was the liberals who said global warming is irreversible in the first place!.
>>7725784
What do you consider tampered data and why do you feel temperature records are tampered? Are you advocating a global conspiracy that all scientists and governments are in on?
The Earth's Atmosphere and Hydrosphere go through cycles of heating and cooling (Ice Ages and global warming) We really do not know if we are in the heating cycle right now or if it is of Human impact.
That's a hot opinion you've got there, OP. Thanks for providing facts and figures instead of blaming a political ideology to back it all up; you've really changed my mind.
>>7725818
> hurr, durr, resort to ad hominem by calling him a conspiracy wack-job.
> I'll distract from the fact that I can't provide a falsifiability criterion.
The only conspiracy nut-job is you for believing that the EVIL oil companies are the only reason someone would doubt an unfalsifiable dogma masquerading as science.
>>7721286
You're a fucking idiot
>>7724754
Wichitafag here, can confirm it's been downright balmy
Though we did have an ice storm a few weeks ago, so there's that
>>7725878
>hurr, durr, resort to ad hominem by calling him a conspiracy wack-job.
He didn't do that, he asked you a civilised question. Then you proceed to ad hom him anyway. This is why people dismiss your kind as morons.
>blast absurd and increasing amounts of carbon dioxide and other miscellaneous gasses into the air at a near constant rate for 100 years
>There's no way this will have undesirable consequences!
>mfw
>>7725937
>saying something that hasn't been proven to be consequential
>using huur durr to discredit opposition
Never change, climate change zealots. You're thankfully at least a step above anti-smokers regarding how tolerable your misinformation is.
>>7725952
'proof' of necessary statements from empirical observation is impossible, so you're treating the claims under an unfair standard. But induction tells us that things that exist do things, and if you have a lot of the same things all at once they are going to do a lot of things or do the same thing that just a small amount of those things do, except they do that thing a lot more seriously. Is any of this objectionable to you? Where do you think all the carbon dioxide goes?
Here you go guys, effect of human activity on the global climate system.
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/mindex.shtml
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201510
https://www.wmo.int/media/content/record-global-temperatures-and-high-impact-weather-and-climate-extremes
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data.shtml
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n6/full/nclimate2617.html
How long until Exxon gets the RICO treatment?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
>>7726022
That's very likely taken out of context.
Remember how it was "revealed" that tobacco companies supposedly found out through their own research that secondhand smoke was four times as harmful as regular smoke, when that is actually completely unfounded bullshit?
It's all chicken little crap.
>>7721812
They didn't just go overboard. Numerous studies have proved that SHS isn't harmful.
http://www.yourdoctorsorders.com/2009/01/the-myth-of-second-hand-smoke/
>>7725952
Not him but climate change deniers are the literal equivalent of "dindu nuffin" niggas.
>our ancestors spent thousands of years displacing plant life throughout the entire world.
>said plants are also the reason why the planet can currently support the type of life that exist now (we wouldn't learn about this until much later).
>claim more and more "land" to build and replace with man made structures.
>regulate, breed and clone hybrid mutant plants for our consumption and profit. >utilize sub-par, poorly researched methods of farming that cause ecosystem shifts in fragile areas that result in shit like the Oklahoma Dust Bowl.
>untold numbers of plant species become extinct or reach near extinction.
>finally a few people realize that maybe our existence and continued progress has some sort of impact on other forms of life on this fucking rock.
>start building doomsday structures for plants like the Svalbard Global Seed Vault since even big business and governments realize it would be smart to have a backup plan now.
Yet people still talk about "lel nope there's no climate change" and "humans aren't impacting the environment".
Meanwhile
>atmosphere composition is changing favoring increase in carbon
>ph levels in the oceans are dropping
>land erosion is becoming more prevalent
>mountains throughout the world that provide water supply for nearby lands are altered. In Africa glacial masses on mountain tops are disappearing while in India a number of small villages are being outright flooded by increase of melting of snow/ice from mountains that feed into local rivers.
>due to increase industrialization/pollution China's clean water supply is running low
It's pretty god damn apparent we are causing climate at this point. People just don't want to accept responsibility for it.
>>7726072
I skimmed the article and went to the sources. I eliminated the articles and chose an EPA report at random out of the remaining sources. Straight out of the gate, in the summary:
>Based on the weight of the available scientific evidence, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has concluded that the widespread exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) in the United States presents a serious and substantial public health impact.
go to bed /pol/
>>7726131
So you just skimmed it? You didn't read that the EPA fucked up, and that studies cited by that guy showed an extraordinarily weak and inconsequential health "risk" with secondhand smoke? Did you even look at Enstrom's study? Or Matthews?
The EPA honestly looks like they blew the whistle too early without any conclusive evidence.
>>7726272
>so you just skimmed an opinion piece without footnotes and only cursory references
Yes.
>>7726275
It hardly counts as an opinion piece. It specifically cited epidemiological studies disproving the "serious" risks to non smokers. The most prevalent being Enstrom's study that showed no significant health risks for spouses over a 30 year period. There was another showing no risk for bar and restaurant employees, where SHS levels are high.
The "works cited" including those studies are at the bottom of the article and easily searchable on Google.
>>7726294
>that showed no significant health risks for spouses over a 30 year period
That was the one only tracking heart disease and lung cancer rates, no?
>>7726295
Well, you can see for yourself
http://www.bmj.com/content/326/7398/1057.full
It's the most significant US secondhand smoke study to my knowledge, and it showed no real mortality related harm in non smokers who were regularly exposed to SHS indoors - which would include both lung cancer and heart disease.
A lot of people like to shit on this study but I don't see why, doesn't seem to be anything wrong with it.
>>7721286
>why
Lack of religion.
People need religion in their lives, but religion is 'uncool' now so new hip ones have to be created.
Global warming for example is a religion. Its lead by a smaller group of people who claim to know the truth, and has masses of people who dont understand any of it blindly following along. It has religious terms like 'denier'(aka heretic) and its own doomsday scenario.
Basically global warming is just another doomsday cult.
Whether its happening or not is irrelevant to this post. What im pointing out is that its a replacement religion for fedoras.
'Science'-spawned ideologies (i say 'science' because its more 'academia' spawned than 'science' spawned, science values skepticism above all else, whereas academia is just another echo chamber) are the newest set of religions.
Its a simple test. According to real science, if you believe something, you should spend all your time and effort trying to disprove it. In fact you should be so fanatical at this that even when you are unable to do so, you should still assume its probably wrong, but just that its probably close enough that you will roll with it for now, and when it stops working, thats when you have the knowledge to disprove it. Anyone who affirms belief in anything at all that science has shown us, is inherently unscientific.
>>7726370
/Pol/, just fuck off, your idiocy is unwelcome here. Stop being so fucking arrogant to think that you're smart enough to redpill all of us.
Just fuck off.
/Pol/ has been making a lot of bait threads about climate change and race, most that are pruned or deleted. Because op gets btfo.
Go away.
>>7726395
You could replace /pol/ with 'satan' and you sound like someone trying to exorcise a demon.
If you would have bothered to read my post i clearly pointed out that it has nothing to do with whether the climate is changing of not, of course it is. My criticism is how dogmatic everything has become. Skepticism is fundamental to science, and in the long run dogma is going to seize any progress towards trying to fix things.
>>7726402
/POL/ JUST GO AWAY
YOU ARE NOT WANTED ON THIS FUCKING BOARD
GO BACK TO YOUR CONTAINMENT BOARD
FUCK OFF AND DIE, YOU DON'T ATTEND SCHOOL OR PARTICIPATE IN ANY RESEARCH, YOU DON'T BELONG ON /SCI/
>>7721473
>How the fuck can someone be retarded enough to deny climate change lol holy shit.
Yeah i know exactly what you mean, its warm in the summer and cold in the winter how could you deny climate change
>>7726402
Your talking about how things are becoming dogmatic while you're glorifying religion and telling us that people need religion.
Are you high?
>>7726406
heh. I smiled for a second then got depressed realizing that the majority of people really behave this way and dont see their own irony.
>>7721286
>record cold
>northeast
>pennsylvania
it was 65 yesterday. it RAINED three days ago.
>>7726411
>glorifying
Where did i do that in that post?
People are inherently hard wired to have religion. Its best to keep science and religion separate. When you lack one or the other, whatever you are left with becomes both. In western europe you see the lack of science, the western church developed scholasticism as a response, now in the west you have the lack of the other, and you get dogmatic academia. You saw the same thing with islam, when they decided only truth is in the quran and literally everything else is untrue, so they burned all the libraries in india.
In contrast the more civilized parts of the world (byzantium) retained both, and kept them separate. To this day orthodoxy doesnt see a need to force one to comply to the other, and is perfectly happy keeping them as two totally separate systems.
>>7726422
You dumb cunt, religion has nothing to do with climate Change. To force it into this discussion already shows your bias.
You've prepared these ideas beforehand and you just want to distract this scientific discussion.
There's a reason pol exists, it's for people like you. So do me a favour, screenshot these posts, post them on pol and start some "why are so called scientists so gullible and godless?" and stay there.
Just fucking stay there.
>>7726432
Physical climate change? No, but we arent talking about that. If you read the OP of this thread its very clearly not about what sorts of things are actually happening, but about the public perception of things and the behavior of society in general.
The question is why do people act the way they do in regards to these things. And i answer it, because these things have become the new religion.
I then illustrate this by drawing parallels between more traditional religions and the behavior and mentality of the public in regards to these things. And in this very thread even forced some poor practitioner to try and defend himself from me by chanting mantras designed to protect him.
You cant get much more conclusive than that, when it comes to psychology anyway :^)
>>7723700
ayy nice sample size bro
>>7726439
Difference between science and religion:
Religion: "Book written thousands of years ago is the truth and must be followed for it was written by wise men."
Science:" What we're doing here is based upon research and continually updated models. Our hypothesis are welcome to criticism and if it can be proven wrong we revise our theory and find out where the error lies"
Just because USA aka Dumbfuckistan is dumb and can't understand this, doesn't mean science is anything like a religion.
I fucking hate dumb people who use science as a shield instead of a resource.
Again, fuck off to pol, this is the last time I will reply to you.
>>7726463
>Religion: "Book written thousands of years ago
There are plenty of cults springing up all over the place every day claiming all sorts of things. A larger, formalized religion, is just one such cult that managed to take off successfully.
Honestly only protestants even see a book as the absolute foundation of their religion. Even sikhs, who literally have a literal book as their leader (at some point their highest religious authority declared that his successor would be a book, and so now the book is literally the leader), didnt start out that way. If you are going to talk about religion you should know more than american megacurches and crazy protestants.
Even the kinds of logic you use in science were created when the western church decided it needed more rigorous theological proofs. Replace empirical data with centuries of ecumenical proclamations or popespeak, the systems of analysis remain the same.
Religion is not a set of ideas, religion is a way that humans react to a set of ideas. What the ideas are, and where they come from, is entirely irrelevant.
>>7726072
Still, it stinks, and I'm glad people are not allowed to smoke in restaurants anymore.
>>7723700
>long term
>20 years
for every grain of sand in the beaches there are 100 trillion atoms of a sun molecule burning for over 50 billion life times
-- dr who
>>7726620
When was this graph made?
>>7726614
That's not an excuse to get rid of it. Perfume and axe body spray smells, you don't see people banning that either.
>>7722274
Fuck you, I love winter and snow. You have to be a joy less asshole not to love snow.
>>7726363
>A lot of people like to shit on this study but I don't see why, doesn't seem to be anything wrong with it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Enstrom#BMJ_study_and_controversy
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>7721286
>global warming
>doesn't use a global map
fucking americans think usa is the whole world
do they even stop and think
>>7727812
>funded by tobacco industry
>they must be wrong regardless of the results/nature of the study!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
>>7727865
Most of those issues are nonsensical
>peer review board didn't have people who were ABSOLUTE EXPERTS on SHS exposure
>therefore it's shit
Come on.
Also, the EPA seems to think there's a massive tinfoil conspiracy where tobacco companies team up and downplay effects of smoke harm. That sounds just as ridiculous as any other conspiracy theory yet people buy into it.
>>7721286
>record cold in nevada
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...
>>7725926
>>He implied that you were a conspiracy nutter
>He didn't do that, he asked you a civilised question.
Whatever
>>7726124
Them models dindu nuffin.
>>7728258
>OMG! An evil denier got net funding rate of about $60K per year. Which mean he lied about everything.
Q: What do you call an untenured government funded scientist/meteorologist who publicly doubts climate change?
A: Unemployed
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/03/europe/france-weatherman-sacked-climate/
>>7728402
Nope. He was sacked for selling his book by using his position at France 2, which was a breach of his contract.
Ok so let's play a hypothetical here, let's say for sake of argument that global warming is 100% bullshit. Now exactly how does it hurt to switch over to green power? Even if it 100% a lie, I still fail to see how staying on oil and what not is a better option for the environment or anything for that matter.
>>7728258
Who cares if its corporate cash? Doesn't suddenly make the findings wrong.
A lot of studies that "prove" that secondhand smoke is bad also get a ton of government funding and support from politically charged zealots. I'm more willing to doubt those, honestly. But I don't. I look at the best studies, and the best ones show no real risks at all.
![slr_prediction_med[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/E6udclz.jpg "slr_prediction_med[1].jpg")
>>7728374
>Cherry-pick models that don't fit the evidence
>Ignore all the models that do
And you consider this to be sound evidence?
>>7728664
>>7728769
>cheery-pick evidence that doesnt fit my evidence
>ignore scientific method
And you consider this to be sound practice? Good video on topic btw:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GujLcfdovE8
>>7721358
>>7726395
>>7726406
>>7726150
>>7728806
>make ridiculous claim and argue on a made up basis that makes no sense to anyone
>go away retard
>CANT HANDLE THE DEBATE
![ar5-figure1-4[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/jSltPgY.jpg "ar5-figure1-4[1].jpg")
>>7728784
>cheery-pick evidence that doesnt fit my evidence
Yeah, that's called "proving you wrong," idiot.
>ignore scientific method
How, exactly? I've shown evidence that contradicts yours. You have to show that there is some reason my evidence is wrong. Also, here is some more evidence that contradicts yours: climate models that match our observations and show a warming trend.
![sea_ice_prediction_med[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/o6lAvkG.jpg "sea_ice_prediction_med[1].jpg")
>>7728784
>>7728815
And here's some more evidence, now with papers as well instead of just graphics:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n9/full/nclimate2310.html
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen_etal_3.pdf
>>7727213
A whole restaurant has never smelled strongly of perfume or axe body spray
>>7727222
i do too and those are some interesting trips
>>7721286
>I know most scientists now are total retards
... riiight, it's teh Libruls, right? Riiight.
Why do people defend second-hand smoke? I don't care if you smoke--I just care when your smoke suddenly becomes my smoke. Smoking is a choice YOU made and its impacts should therefore be felt only by the user, YOU.
>>7728823
Doesn't matter if it isn't bad for you. Some places or buildings smell pretty bad, does that mean we should regulate smells?
>>7728821
>from cherrypicking datasets to cherrypicking poles
ISHYGDDT
>>7721286
It literally has not snowed more than an inch in minnesota. Ski places cannot even make snow right now. This is the dumbest political cartoon ive ever seen.
![F5.large[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/gsgGCsZ.jpg "F5.large[1].jpg")
>>7728888
That's just measuring ice extent, not ice thickness. The actual mass of ice has significantly decreased across all poles, except for one region of Antarctica.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183
And this region of Antarctica only has more ice because of short-term uptick in snowfall, not a long-term trend in growth. It's also not enough to offset losses from the other regions.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183
>>7728888
>>7728821
Also
>sea ice
>having any other meaning than slight albedo effect
The paris climate conference has been a complete joke based on false narrative.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/11/04/record-cold-and-ice-growth-continuing-in-the-arctic-accompanied-by-record-fraud-from-the-press/
>>7728904
Shit posted the same article twice. The second-should be:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL053316/abstract
>>7728916
Are you seriously using some random guy's blog as a source for scientific information? He uses only three years of data to determine that ice growth is at "record" levels, and then uses only one year of temperature monitoring to determine that temperature is at "record" lows. Also, he makes the same fucking mistake you did: he measures ice extent, not mass. The actual amount of ice has decreased, regardless of if it covers more area, because the ice is thinner, and thus has less mass.
This really highlights the dichotomy of this debate. I can cite credible scientific journals, whereas you cite some random guy who knows nothing about data analysis.
>>7728925
What about nasa? Is that an authority that can present information that you can take at face value?
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
The best part
>But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to revers
My point is not to prove you wrong. My point is to point out how ridiculous the entire multi-billion-dollar climate change industry is and how blindly everyone takes climate models as an absolute truth, the climate models that completely leave out the deep ocean currents, solar activity/variance (which ultimately is THE source of heat) and milankovich cycles.
>>7728968
Yes but why force that on people? Why not just tell the truth?
>>7728997
That's the problem I have with the media.
"Smoking [...] is unhealthy"
Back then 19xx (under hitler)
Scientists in germany discovered a cohalation between smoking and lung cancer
![Solar_vs_temp_500[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/ZjXAsgV.jpg "Solar_vs_temp_500[1].jpg")
>>7728955
That study says that there was only a net gain until 2008, and just asserts that there's some sort of "dynamic thickening" that occurs over thousands of years. They basically tried to model snowfall over thousands of years, but Antarctica is a effectively an ice desert, and does not have predictable snowfall.
Here are two more studies contradicting their findings:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL060111/abstract
http://www.princeton.edu/geosciences/people/simons/pdf/EPSL-2015a.pdf
I've now shown four papers with a consistent conclusion (i.e., Antarctica is losing ice), whereas you have simply jumped on the first paper that supports yours with no skepticism of how the claims it makes may have been achieved.
>My point is to point out how ridiculous the entire multi-billion-dollar climate change industry is and how blindly everyone takes climate models as an absolute truth, the climate models that completely leave out the deep ocean currents, solar activity/variance (which ultimately is THE source of heat) and milankovich cycles.
I don't know about deep ocean currents, but I don't think that there is evidence either way to suggest they are contributing or detracting from global warming. The only papers I could find discussed how global warming would affect deep ocean currents, not the other way around.
Are you seriously suggesting that climate models don't account for solar activity? Even if solar activity were a source of the warming trend, then we would have evidence for that. Instead, the sun has shown a cooling trend as of recent years.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022/meta;jsessionid=B619B49A51B11D2AA410181311CA40B6.ip-10-40-2-108
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.167.2337&rep=rep1&type=pdf
https://thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/anthropogenic-and-natural-warming-inferred-from-changes-in-earths-energy-balance.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0901/0901.0515v1.pdf
>>7728955
>>7729408
More papers:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009JGRD..11414101B
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/464/2094/1387.abstract
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/464/2094/1367.abstract
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/10/3713.full
And so on. Sun is cooling, Earth is warming. It's not the sun, and you're foolish to suggest we don't study solar activity as a possible cause of global warming.
And Milankovitch cycles are currently in a downswing; we're moving farther away from the sun, and yet the planet is warming instead of cooling.
Your skepticism towards global warming is completely unfounded.
>>7721286
Beautiful weather down here in Texas, might take a bike ride later :D
>itt: Far too many people arguing with anecdotes
I thought this was a /sci/ence board
>>7729047
Hitler had a personal agenda against smoking. That's widely known.
>>7729459
Anecdotes are still worth looking into, hell the MAJORITY (not just anecdotes) of people who either smoke or are around smokes don't suffer any significant illness. Only 15% of smokers get lung cancer.
>>7721286
>>global warming is contributed by man/man made
>> [that comic]
You can't just point to a cold winter and say it disproves 'global warming'. Hell, it's not even about getting warm in winter. It's about weather becoming more extreme due to the global average temps going up.
You do know half the globe isn't having winter, right?
This can mean actually worse winters due to what we call 'global warming'. I remember reading how England would get colder
'Global warming' is far from simple. And certainly you can't just pretend that man made factors aren't contributing to it at all just because a buncha big companies are making great profits from doing stuff that probably contribute to it.
You ever think that some junk science out there supporting continued pollution is just propaganda from people who want to continue business as usual, not matter the cost to the rest of the people on this planet?
>>7729459
It snowed last night here in New York! That proves global warming isn't real!
>>7728444
Yeah, yeah, yeah. People never use their position to sell a book.
What a load of crap.
>>7728664
What would be wrong with destroying our economy? Gosh, tough question to answer.
>>7721315
>.blogspot.com
Seems like a totally legitimate source.
>>7728769
And you trust John Cook, well known liar, to construct an accurate graph?
>wattsupwiththat .com/2012/02/03/monckton-responds-to-skeptical-science/
>http://impactofcc.blogspot.com/2013/05/john-cook-et-al-willfully-lie.html
>http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html
Now look how the history of rising oceans has been rewritten. Yup, NASA rewrites NASA. Go figure.
>>7728815
A fraudulent, after-the-fact graph. Here's the actual FAILED prediction from UN IPCC AR4.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-10-26.html
Pic related: Close-up of the lower, left graph with updated temps.
Proof that Climate Change is an unfalsifiable pseudo-science. Everytime their prediction fails, they make a new phony graph and hope no one finds the old one.
>>7730298
His contract said not to do that or face penalties, that's why he was fired.
We don't know what else was in the contract or how the dealings were done. If you have any questions, twitter him.
He should have been smart about it, not go against his contract. Do you even know how big France 2 is?
>>7721315
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/50-years-of-progress/full-report.pdf
Fuck off.
>>7728216
>Most of those issues are nonsensical
What's wrong with the methodological criticism, i.e. "Problems with quality and validity of the data"? That's the relevant part.
>>7728904
The antarctic is growing in ice/snow. Even NASA admits it. Could you be more disingenuous. More unfalsifiability.
warmist: Antarctic sea ice will shrink => reality: antarctic sea ice is growing
warmst: We meant land ice & snow => reality: NASA shows gaining snow/ice mass
warmist: Just ignore the regions we don't like.
Pic related: green is new sea ice, red is lost sea ice.
NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
And yes, they predicted shrinking Sea Ice:
Detection of Temperature and Sea Ice Extent Changes in the Antarctic and Southern Ocean,
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADP007268
Greenhouse Gas–induced Climate Change Simulated with the CCC Second-Generation General Circulation Model
G. J. Boer , N. A. McFarlane , and M. Lazare
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%281992%29005%3C1045%3AGGCCSW%3E2.0.CO%3B2
>>7730319
Citation??? I want to see a picture of the contract, not excuses from a warmist blog site.
>>7730324
No, you don't get to post alarmist propaganda designed to overstate the harm of smoking and shs without debunking the numerous studies proving shs isn't harmful and that only a small amount of smokers suffer serious health effects, and that's only after doing it for a long time. Not to mention the fact that other factors are in play (breathing in radon, for instance).
Velvet glove, iron fist is a good example of what's happening with all of the supposed authority surrounding how bad smoke/shs is. People are hellbent on debunking stuff like climate change but apparently smoking still offends their sensibilities enough that they can't see through it.
>>7728821
Yeah, right. Where are the measurements from the early 20th century and such. Oh, those are just guesstimates. Arctic was warming and melting in the 1940s. Sorry that your buddies couldn't erase the internet.
>>7728821
Wow, a graph made up by John Crook. Where is the actual graph?, give the specific IPCC reference (it should be on the internet.) I know where the graph is, in John Cooks head and nowhere else.
>>7730330
The data is being criticized for a ton of ridiculous reasons. When it was released it got a slew of hate mail denouncing it due to tobacco ties (why does it matter if he gets money from tobacco companies for funding?) and because of people's preconceived notions about how bad secondhand smoke is. People jumped on that study the second it came out due to the implications of spousal exposure being harmless. It's hard to take the criticism of it seriously.
The other author of the study also wrote at least one informative book on the logical fallacies of connecting health problems to shs. Scientists are still divided on this issue and from what can be observed the anti-smokers are the ones being presumptuous and using scare mongering.
>>7730333
Area =! Volume.
>>7730334
>picture of a contract
Are you dumb?
I was in France when it happened. The best you can do is look for the article. Hang on let me call France 2 to release a picture of their contract.
>>7728821
And here is an actual graph of Arctic sea ice coverage from UN IPCC, 1990. Yeah, a real graph, not one made up by John Crook.
Now you know why Crook and company start their data at 1978 instead of 1972.
>>7721286
>Things aren't exactly as predicted.
>Must be the liberals making things stupid!
Please stop.
>>7730349
Read it again. Both area and mass have increased. mass = volume * density
>>7730352
>asking me to make myself up with an real citation???
Yeah, we both know its just trumped up to fire an evil denier. Would he have been fired for advertising a warmist book? Of course not. Prove otherwise.
>>7730343
More evidence of the melting period from about 1920 to 1947.
>>7730363
Keep up your victim complex, it's only going to make you stressed.
>>7730348
Right. Obviously you have no actual argument against the methodological criticisms, and would prefer to distract with other completely irrelevant things.
Wow you have truly proved how retarded you are. 1). Global warming also makes temp, colder, retard 2). Calling scientists dumb because your downy ass can read data is pretty funny
>>7729408
Isn't it interesting how that graph of solar activity matches early NASA temperature data? You know, before they rewrote the temperature history.
>>7729408
And look how well the solar record matches un-"corrected" Historical Climate Network data.
>nb4 U.S. is not the world
The U.S. has the best surface temperature records in the world and its anomalies strongly correlate with global temp anomalies. The rest of the surface temp record is much more speculative especially oceans and poles.
>>7730369
>I can't answer the question, just BS-ing to protect a politicized dogma masquerading as science.
Why am I not surprised? In your defense, getting fired is better than going to the gulag.
>>7722239
Unfortunately for you, 2015 is the hottest year ever recorded since we started taking records
>>7730382
Ohhhh right, because I'm a filthy commie :D stay strong comrade!
>>7729416
>Earth is warming
False. The most accurate temperature data says otherwise.
>>7729416
>Earth is warming.
Antarctic pole not warming.
>>7729416
>Earth is warming
Arctic pole temps are flat to negative for the past decade.
>>7729416
>Earth is warming.
And AGW predicted stratospheric cooling. But the stratosphere hasn't cooled for 20 years. And it only cooled before then due to volcano activity.
Isn't it funny how the most clean and reliable data, satellite data contradict AGW?
>>7730336
So the entire report is invalid, all of the thousands of studies it cites, just all alarmist propaganda?
Here's a random snippet for example:
>Cigarette smoking also has a number of effects on the coagulation system that promote thrombosis. Smoking increases the generation of von Willebrand factor, thrombin, and fibrinogen, and it impairs fibrinolysis, a process that is critical to the dissolution of blood clots (Matetzky et al. 2000; Sambola et al. 2003; MacCallum 2005). Moreover, endothelial dysfunction caused by smoking reduces the release of tPA and increases the expression of PAI-1 (Newby et al. 2001).
>The binding of activated platelets to leukocytes results in both pro-inflammatory and prothrombotic effects. This binding is modulated by the cluster of differentiation (CD)40 receptor and its ligand. Smokers demonstrate both an increased number of platelet-monocyte aggregates and greater upregulation of the CD40/CD40 ligand system (Harding et al. 2004).
>Cigarette smokers have higher levels of thrombopoietin than do nonsmokers (Lupia et al. 2010). This is important because thrombopoietin is a growth factor that simulates the proliferation and differentiation of megakaryocytes, resulting in increased numbers of mature platelets and enhanced platelet activation in response to different stimuli.
>Smoking also changes the structure of platelets, with smokers demonstrating altered platelet membrane fluidity, which is associated with the effects of oxidants on lipids. Smoking changes the ultrastructure of the fibrin network and is associated with a more prominent globular nature and increased pseudopodia formation (Pretorius 2012).
Care to show us these numerous studies disproving it? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
>>7728968
Do you think that that's going to be instant? Do you think it's going to immediately offset the amount of growth India and China are experiencing right now as they industrialize? Those attempts to reduce GHGs are to avoid the Worst Case scenario, or to at least keep it at bay.
>>7729416
>Earth is warming.
How come the most accurate data, satellite data says the troposphere is not warming, even though AGW predicts it would warm faster than the surface? Even the head of NASA GISS, Gavin Schmidt admits that
>>7725784
>nb4 satellite & radiosondes in troposphere is really inaccurate.
Funny, they were accurate to 0.1 C until experiment contradicted theory. Suddenly the instruments stopped working.
>>7730402
Pic here.
>>7730409
No shit that's the point. Global scale changes take time. That's why on graphs you see a curve no an instant change.
>>7730407
Studies are still perfectly capable of being crap. Some science/medical journals will publish anything.
>>7730504
So every study that doesn't agree with your bias is crap. How convenient. I'll give you a 6/10 for keeping me going this long. Please put more effort into your trolling next time.
>>7730521
I'm serious though, it's perfectly capable of happening. John Bohannon made an example of that.
Shs isn't linked to lung cancer according to Stanford, and shs is constantly linked to heart attack/other health problems that don't involve cancer even though the correlation is far reaching and dubious. Quite a few tobacco researchers (not just scientists, researchers, or whomever you consider smart people, but actual tobacco researchers studying the specifics) have came to this conclusion.
And while you mention biases, a ton of people won't even look at a study funded by anything resembling a tobacco company or a front group, discrediting it without even looking at the evidence.
![figure-1-4-models-vs-observations-annotated[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/I0iekr2.png "figure-1-4-models-vs-observations-annotated[1].png")
>>7730315
What exactly is the source of your graph? Because all I can find is links to other /sci/ threads by reverse Google image searching it. Did you just draw it in MSpaint or something? I'm presuming it's a shitty effort to convey this chart from the report, which was an incomplete rough draft that was somehow leaked. Would you appreciate it if your professor graded your un-submitted, rough drafts of an assignment, with all the errors in it, after he stole it off your computer, Anon?
>>7730306
You overlayed two charts on top of one another, one measuring sea level change in centimeters from 1880 to 1982, the other measuring sea level change in millimeters from 1870 to 2015. I know absolutely nothing about how the data was collected for these graphs; for all I know, you were the only who tampered with it by willfully misrepresenting the information. The 1982 graph, from what I can barely read, seems to show that sea levels rose by 800 millimeters (starting from -4 centimeters and going to 4 centimeters), while the 2015 graph says sea levels went from 0 millimeters to 200 millimeters. In other words, the second chart shows less of an increase. So, if you were intending to suggest that the graphs had been re-written to show more of an increase, you showed the opposite. Also, both graphs still show a rise in sea levels. And, to conclude, do you really think in 33 years of climate science, modeling of past sea levels has not improved? Why should the fact that data is updated based on new evidence be some sort of heinous crime, unless the updates don't support a conclusion you want? You are proposing that scientists not adapt their views based on new evidence, which is against the core of the scientific method.
>>7730343
>>7730367
You pretend there are quantitative measurements of Arctic ice, and post a Norwegian anecdote and an article from the Canberra Times with only qualitative assessments and no quantitative measurements. Why do you think this somehow shows there are quantitative measurements of Arctic sea ice in the early 20th century?
>>7730347
The source is from the Copenhagen Diagnosis, published 2009, located here:
http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/Copenhagen_Diagnosis_HIGH.pdf
John Cook wasn't even a member of that project, so I don't see how he's relevant.
>>7730353
That graph shows sea ice extent anomaly (i.e. change in the extent of sea ice, thus the trend line would show change in the change in the extent of sea ice), where as mine just shows sea ice extent (thus the trend line would show change in the extent of sea ice). You're comparing two different things.
>>7730375
>>7730379
How exactly are you matching these graphs up to the solar radiation graph? These are just temperature graphs. There's no comparison to solar output in either of these charts. Furthermore, you continue to complain about scientists adapting to new methods of analysis and new data, showing that you don't care about the scientific method, but just proving your ideological side correct.
![FR11_All[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/6OUWQp0.gif "FR11_All[1].gif")
>>7730395
Yes, the most accurate, uncited temperature data that you just pulled out of your ass or from some random guy's blog. Here is the actual temperature record from 1979 to 2010, per Foster and Rahmstor 2011, a peer-reviewed article posted in an actual climate science journal, found here:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022/meta
The .gif shows both raw data and the data adjusted to remove El Nino Souther Oscillation, random solar variance, and volcanic activity.
>>7730397
>>7730401
Wow, if you just choose the right specific coordinates on the Earth's surface, you can show whatever trend in temperature you want because you're showing local weather instead of regional climate, and any broader trends quickly become part of all whole bunch of noise. How fascinating.
![Cooling_Stratosphere[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/SmJKCk8.gif "Cooling_Stratosphere[1].gif")
>>7730402
>>7730415
That still shows a cooling trend from 1980 to 2010, you just choose to highlight that there's less of a trend over a shorter timescale, two of which were punctuated by large volcanic eruptions that caused a five year "recovery period" in the trend. The cooling trend becomes even more apparent if you choose a longer timescale, per se, from 1960 to 2005, as in pic related.
>>7730532
Why should I care about this? What does one guy winning one live debate against some other guy have to do whether or not the facts they are arguing are true or not? For example, it's generally considered that Bill Nye lost that debate with that creationist guy, don't remember if that was last year or just earlier this year. Does that for some reason mean creationism is true? No, the body of evidence for evolution still stands, Nye just didn't present it well. Same thing here, just with global warming. This just shows John Cook is a bad debater, not that global warming is somehow untrue.
>>7725878
Those first two graphs are identical, they just seem closer because of the vertical scale.
>>7730683
You're just tryin'a confuse Anon with yer fancy peer-reviewed article from an actual climate science jounal, ain'tcha?
>>7730370
You want something other than methodology? Fine.
http://m.jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/12/05/jnci.djt365.extract
I'll have to split this into multiple posts to avoid spam notifications
http://ecigarettereviewed.com/top-10-studies-on-nicotine-you-need-to-know-about/ (not on cigarettes per se but a useful look at nicotine and how it isn't harmful)
And don't give me that "duur blogpost" crap. These posts have relevant information. At least be smart enough to look past your ideology and consider the hard facts
>>7730370
2/3.
http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2014/02/12/the-firing-of-dr-james-enstrom-the-dangers-of-bucking-fashionable-science/
Please consider the fact that you're biased/wrong. The overall amount of research has concluded no risk. Understand this and realize that you can't control people's actions simply because you don't like the idea of people smoking.
>>7730370
Last link won't work for some reason, but velvet glove, iron fist is a good blog for looking into evidence and objective studies proving that shs is harmless.
>>7721286
>It's getting cold, isn't it?
Lol not where I'm at
Its like 30+ degrees warmer than it usually is and its been that way all season
>>7731149
Same. I'm in the Northeast US, it has been in the 40's (F). Usually it's at least below freezing, if not near subzero.
>>7721345
>which has been around since 1950s
you mean the "research" carried out by the tobacco industry?
Some findings of which were kept in the drawer and the people who discovered them were targeted by the tobacco industry?
>>7730625
Why are you pretending you can't find the source when I gave the exact link?
>UN IPCC AR4.
>http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-10-26.html
Let me repeat, its in the lower left hand corner of that figure, magnified and with updated temps. Thats the final draft; stop trying to hid your failure!
And the group you posted agrees with the graph in UN IPCC AR4; besides the updated temps.
>nb4 simpleton scienz says the start point was wrong
Notice how the models begin at the same year/zero-point as the graph referenced above.
>>7730641
OMFG! Please don't tell me that you have a scientific background.
The old graph shows a rise from -4 cm to +4 cm. That 8 centimeters = 80 millimeters.
The new graph starts at about zero and shows a rise to about 150 millimeters. Nearly doubling the rate of ocean rise.
Seriously, please learn to read a graph.
>>7730645
>You pretend there are quantitative measurements
No, you're the one who posted that graph; which you failed to mention is based on low-resolution proxies. Those low resolution proxies fail to capture the well known melting history of the arctic, showing that low resolution proxies make for inaccurate comparisons.
>>7730663
>http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/Copenhagen_Diagnosis_HIGH.pdf
That is just a reference to a reference; namely the UN IPCC. Please show the exact IPCC source of that diagram.
>That graph shows sea ice extent anomaly (i.e. change in the extent of sea ice,
The anomaly in the graph I posted was very large, whereas your graph is cherry-picked to end at about 2005, before the substantive recovery.
The arctic has melted several times, e.g., >>7730343
in fact, its ice coverage roughly oscillates with the Antarctic making things roughly constant. Pic related: total sea ice coverage. Let's have a look:
Year: 1979 2014
MAX 22 22 (millions of sq. Kms
MIN 16 15.5
Wow! Amazingly constant. Why do warmists never post this graph?
>>7730628
Nope, its not the only study.
The Cryosphere, 8, 843-851, 2014
www.the-cryosphere.net/8/843/2014/
doi:10.5194/tc-8-843-2014
High-resolution 900 year volcanic and climatic record from the Vostok area, East Antarctica
Snow- and ice-height change in Antarctica from satellite gravimetry and altimetry data.
A. Mémina, , , T. Flamentb, F. Rémyb, M. Llubes
Stop cherry-picking your sources.
And you're being purposefully deceptive. NASA etc. has known for along time that the shown melting is caused by volcanic activity. Please don't tell me that volcanoes are caused by antrhopogenic CO2.
"Melting Antarctic Variable crustal thickness beneath Thwaites Glacier revealed from airborne gravimetry, possible implications for geothermal heat flux in West Antarctica."
Earth and Planetary Science Letters. Volume 407, 1 December 2014, Pages 109–122
" The presence of such inferred warm upper mantle also suggests regionally elevated geothermal heat flux in this sector of the West Antarctic Rift System and consequently the potential for enhanced meltwater production beneath parts of Thwaites Glacier itself."
>>7732042
area means JACK FUCKING SHIT
post some volume/mass graphs you fucking retarded dense faggot ass idiot fuck
>>7730671
Would you stop acting stupid and ignorant. Its being coming more and more clear that you're acting in bad faith; purposefully mis-interpreting things. The uncorrected data peak in a roughly similar time as the solar data. that's the bottom line.
Now of course, your graph "proving" that solar activity does drive temperature is based on a ridiculous assumption of an essentially linear relationship between basic solar activity (and nothing else).
Even a simple non-linear approach, e.g., sun-spot integrals (and ocean oscillations) explains most of the variance. Pic related.
Seriously, between your inability to read ocean level graphs, your simple minded linear assumptions, etc. I really think you're lacking in fundamental analytical abilities. Perhaps you're just blinded by your ideology.
>>7732066
Fuck off ass wipe. Look at the enormous amount of thick, multi-meter ice in the arctic.
And get over your failed predictions. The arctic was supposed to be melted by now.
>>7730691
Repeat, no cooling for 20 years, despite an enormous increase in CO2.
The only thing you're showing is the unfalsifiability of AGW.
PIC related, CO2 increase and lack of temp increase in the troposphere.
>>7729693
>Only 15% of smokers get lung cancer.
True.
Many get head, neck, thoracic cancer. Also, pancreatic, leukemia, liver, kidney, skin and colon cancer.
Nice try dumbass.
>>7730683
>just pulled out of your ass.
I posted data from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) a analysis company run by warmists. As well as University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH). Get over it.
Your resorts to insulting shows that you have no real argument.
Where did these after-the-fact "corrections" come from? Let me guess, something run by Simpleton Science. Oh, I was right, there it is in the left corner of the pic. John Crook is getting his ass kicked by actual data and analyses so now he has resorted to making speculative, after-the-fact graphs which only stupid people would take as "truth."
You've only proven that Climate Change "Science" is unfalsifiable.
Pic related, the actual IPCC predictions (untampered by after-the-fact adjustments).
>>7732071
> "doesn't drive solar activity"
>>7729710
Global mean temps or sea ice measurements don't predict the general trend.
For example, the 1922 article mentions changes in species composition. Well, how now, bitches? Ocean pH dropping likely cause of plankton die-off, what do you know, fish stocks falling worldwide.
As for the other graph of extent of ice, if you look closely, the lower trend line actually implies a minimum ice extent over 1 million square miles.
Not that I endorse your copypasta.
Keep typing deniers, that will change the results of global instrumentation output.
>>7730699
Marc Morano destroyed the warmist arguments. And John Cook the purveyor of Unskeptical Science, should have had an answer to everything. Instead, he had nothing, just like Climate Change "Science."
>>7732108
>those disgusting unkempt fingernails
why would one paint their nails and draw attention to them when they don't take care of them properly?
>>7730700
Wrong. The first graph shows a difference of 0.1 C between the red and blue bars. The second one has shrunk it to 0.05 C. The final reverses it. A rewrite of the historical temperature record!
>>7732108
What do you think you're here for even if you do believe in salvation.
You're the lab rat, test cases of a being who could only see it fit to make a miserable universe where things must only feed or be fed upon. By our standards, that being has already condemned us to hell. Dangling the possibility of something better in return for compliance is asinine and disjointed.
At that, one must only assume they cannot know the mind of the creator. The creator seems flawed, and its creations readily abandon it. Maybe its creations make it miserable, so it abandoned us.
The only reasonable way to make the irrelevant question of a deity sensible, is to assume it either IS the universe, or exists outside of it and created this as part of some sort of simulation. It cares not.
>>7730742
That article confounds Satellite and land-based temps; making it extremely sloppy. Satellite data show no warming for almost 20 years in the troposphere.
And satellite data shows is much more accurate than surface data which has a tremendous lack of temp stations in much of the land outside the U.S. as well as a great deal of the sea surface.
In short, an after-the-fact attempt to protect an unfalsifiable theory from the unpleasant reality of data which contradicts the theory. I really wish you warmists would start practicing the scientific method.
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." - Richard P. Feynman
Liberals keep saying titantic is sinking but my end just lifted 200 feet in the air. Stupid libtards are wrong again.
![376f82962175ec69aa0e191e4521ce08[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/34Tl31f.png "376f82962175ec69aa0e191e4521ce08[1].png")
>>7731999
There are five charts in that IPCC report, and you decided to choose only one of them, model A1B, and ignore the rest, when the others make different predictions that most likely match our observations, such as model B1. You also chose to take a tiny chart that has much larger scaling than yours and compress it down. It is impossible to know if you accurately mapped the old scaling to the new one.
>>7732007
Mathematical errors aside, my point about there being 33 years of scientific advancement still stands. You are suggesting that scientists not update their data when new methods of analysis arise.
>>7732014
But your "well known melting history" is based on two qualitative news articles, not a scientific paper or any quantitative data. I have quantitative data, you don't. Doesn't matter if it's "low resolution." Please try again.
>>7732042
Fine, you want the absolute original source? The chart is based off 13 models used by the IPCC, located at http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/about/index.php. Those models are:
CCCMA CGCM3
CNRM CM3
IPSL CM4
MUIB ECHO
MRI CGCM2.3.2
UKMO HadGEM1
BCCR BCM2.0
CCCMA COGM3.1
GISS AOM
MIROC3.2 MEDRES
MPI ECHAMS
NCAR CCSM3
UKMO HadCM
The chart pictured is from Stroeve et al. 2007 (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.393.9526&rep=rep1&type=pdf)
Also, once again you're confusing area and mass. The ice could cover more area but be less dense, in which case the amount of ice has decreased.
>>7732058
The first paper is just talking about the record of eruptions and other events in the East Antarctic. Nothing about recent melting trends in the last 250 years.
>>7732103
The removal of ENSO, volcanic activity, and solar activity was made by the authors of the paper, not Skeptical Science. Only the .gif was made by that site. You should maybe read the actual papers I post instead of just glossing over them and attempting to pin everything on some random source.
1/?
>>7732116
>Satellite data show no warming for almost 20 years in the troposphere.
Wrong.
>>7732124
>>7732058
The second paper says that ice decreased on two glaciers in Antarctica at a rate of around 15.7 cm per year while a different glacier increased at rate of around 5.3 cm per year. So in other words, more decrease than increase, and only focusing on three specific areas.
The third paper only talks about volcanic activity affecting one glacier, not the whole ice sheet system in West Antarctica.
>>7732071
Your reliance on this "uncorrected" data only proves that you are unwilling to accept that scientists adapt their views as new methods of analysis and data arise. Solar irradiance has peaks at 1960 and 1980. The "uncorrected" graph here >>7730379 has peaks at around 1950 and 1990, with no corresponding peaks in solar irradiance. The "uncorrected" graph here >>7730375 has a peak at around 1940, with no corresponding peaks in solar irradiance.
But just to finish off this absolute myth that solar radiation is causing a warming trend, let's just see what the studies say about the sun and global warming.
Foster and Rahmstorf, 2011 (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022/meta): From 1979 to 2010, solar activity had a very slight cooling effect of between -0.014 and -0.023°C per decade.
Lean and Rind, 2008 (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.167.2337&rep=rep1&type=pdf): While solar activity can account for about 11% of the global warming from 1889 to 2006, it can only account for 1.6% of the warming from 1955 to 2005, and had a slight cooling effect (-0.004°C per decade) from 1979 to 2005.
Huber and Knutti, 2011 (https://thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/anthropogenic-and-natural-warming-inferred-from-changes-in-earths-energy-balance.pdf): "Even for a reconstruction with high variability in total irradiance, solar forcing contributed only about 0.07°C (0.03-0.13°C) to the warming since 1950."
2/3
>>7732217
>>7732071
More papers:
Erlykin, 2009 (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0901/0901.0515v1.pdf): "We deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to solar activity is 14% of the observed global warming."
Benestad, 2009 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009JGRD..11414101B): "Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980."
Lockwood, 2008 (http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/464/2094/1387.abstract): "It is shown that the contribution of solar variability to the temperature trend since 1987 is small and downward; the best estimate is -1.3% and the 2? confidence level sets the uncertainty range of -0.7 to -1.9%."
Lockwood, 2008 (different paper, you can check the address)(http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/464/2094/1367.abstract): "The conclusions of our previous paper, that solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise, are shown to apply for the full range of potential time constants for the climate response to the variations in the solar forcings."
Amman, 2007 (http://www.pnas.org/content/104/10/3713.full): "Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century."
Lockwood 2007 (he seems to study this quite a bit)(http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/lockwood2007.pdf): "The observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanism is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."
2/4
>>7732227
>>7732071
Scaffeta, 2006 (http://www.acrim.com/Reference%20Files/Sun%20&%20Global%20Warming_GRL_2006.pdf): "since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone."
Solanki, 2004 (http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf): "solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades."
Haigh, 2003 (http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=14604941): "Observational data suggest that the Sun has influenced temperatures on decadal, centennial and millennial time-scales, but radiative forcing considerations and the results of energy-balance models and general circulation models suggest that the warming during the latter part of the 20th century cannot be ascribed entirely to solar effects."
Stott, 2003 (http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/StottEtAl.pdf): I ncreased climate model sensitivity to solar forcing and still found "most warming over the last 50 yr is likely to have been caused by increases in greenhouse gases."
Solanki, 2003 (http://www2.mps.mpg.de/homes/natalie/PAPERS/warming.pdf): "the Sun has contributed less than 30% of the global warming since 1970."
Leah, 1999 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682698001138): "it is unlikely that Sun–climate relationships can account for much of the warming since 1970."
Waple, 1999 (http://ppg.sagepub.com/content/23/3/309.abstract): "little evidence to suggest that changes in irradiance are having a large impact on the current warming trend."
Frohlich, 1998 (http://ieg.or.kr/abstractII/G0102523037.PDF): "solar radiative output trends contributed little of the 0.2°C increase in the global mean surface temperature in the past decade."
>>7732084
So on one particular day this year, there was thick ice in the Arctic. This somehow disproves a long-term trend in ice decline?
3/5
>>7732102
None of that has been successfully linked to smoking in a causative fashion, especially shs which is harmless.
Try again dumbass.
>>7731774
That was because people made shit up in order to attack the tobacco industry regarding shs. They do this all he time with other tobacco products too. Or do you not recall the fact that someone stupidly claimed that tobacco studies proved that shs was four times more harmful than smoking in itself?
Actually think instead of giving into anti-smoking fiction.
>>7732090
>and lack of temp increase in the troposphere.
We don't live in the troposphere.
>>7732112
>between the red and blue bars
Which don't correspond to anything, and seem to be placed arbitrarily.
Okay.
>>7732084
>Ice Thickness (m)
> Look at the enormous amount of thick, multi-meter ice in the arctic.
...what is that supposed to prove?
>>7732116
>Satellite data show no warming for almost 20 years in the troposphere.
What's your fucking obsession with the twenty year trend in the troposphere?
Surface measurements show a strong warming trend.
Ocean measurements show a strong warming trend.
Measurements on longer scale show a strong warming trend.
>>7732286
>tobacco studies
*secret tobacco funded studies
>>7732281
>>7732090
So, in an attempt to disprove a longer-term trend in stratospheric cooling, you post a shorter-term trend. How does this prove anything? Also, that chart is talking about the upper troposphere, not the stratosphere, and it's saying there should be warming, instead of cooling. And, furthermore, a tropospheric hotspot has been observed in the short-term per Trenberth 2006 (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3891.1) and Santer 2005 (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/sa04100j.html), and in the long-term per Titchner 2009 (http://camels.metoffice.gov.uk/quarc/Titchner09.pdf) and Sherwood 2008 (http://camels.metoffice.gov.uk/quarc/Sherwood08_JClimate.pdf).
>>7732103
If the "corrections" were such a problem, then why does the warming trend still appear without the corrections, but just with larger spikes due to solar fluctuations, volcanic activity, and El Nino effects?
>>7732109
I don't care. This is not evidence for or against global warming, just evidence of someone's skills of debating global warming.
5/5.
>>772637
What function was religion serving that the theory of climate change and related culture now fill
Wow. Look at /sci/ arguing with evidence instead of just, you know. Ignoring conspiratard threads.
>>7721286
>smoking is bad for you
So filling your lungs with ash should be considered healthy?
>global warming is fake
Correct, only cucks with no idea what they're talking about believe co2 is changing the temperature
>vaccines are bad
Depends on the vaccine and your body, some are some aren't, they're still a mostly good thing
>>7721315
You know cancer isn't the only problem with smoking.
Another thing is getting your gums and teeth fucked up, you breathe more badly after every cigarete etc.
I should know I know a lot of people who smoke and I smoked myself and saying it is not bad for you is fucking stupid.
>>7732733
From my understanding the problem is that there's more and more co2 in the atmosphere. Due to the combustion of carbon which hasn't been in the atmosphere since very long ago.
>>7732749
Hey its possible, but after 200 years of study there's still only a correlation
If you ask me, its more likely human body heat from 6 billion additional humans is doing it, if its happening at all
>mfw Antarctica is growing
>>7732755
Wasn't one of the first mass extinction events due to plants? They started to bind co2 into carbohydrates which lead to the planet getting colder?
>>7732759
I actually don't know, but I do know that historically more co2 has meant more life
>>7732286
It's a worldwide conspiracy against the tobacco industry. Every public health body and their thousands of researchers are wasting their time and money getting people to stop smoking because they all don't personally like it. It's got nothing to do with lowering healthcare / taxpayer / societal costs from all of the retards who get lung cancer and go on unemployment.
Great theory.
>>7722274
I'm in Minnesota and I've forgotten what the sun looks like with all this fucking fog & clouds. At this point I'd rather it be the typical wintery hellscape it usually is just so I can get some UV.
