When did you realize that anthropogenic climate change is the biggest scientific hoax in history?
>>7972081
c.u.c.k
>>7972081
It took me quite some time to figure this out. I mean its hard to overcome the brainwashing, when you're being told the same "information" over and over again every year in school and every week in tv. But in the end my scientific mind forced me to question it regardless.
>>7972081
>a British judge
Nigger, it took TWO judges to even realize that the offense they charged me with didn't exist. I don't trust judges to know shit from shinola.
>>7972081
Instantly when I stopped using my brain and started believing /pol/ and Trump
>>7972081
>an expert on law claims that he knows more about climate change than experts in environmental sciences
Great meme, 8/10 baited me a reply
>British judge rules that [science experiment] is wrong
Please be trolling.
About 40 billion tons of co2 added every year to the atmosphere, the weight equivalent of 6060 hoover dams. Sure that is not doing anything :^)
>>7972081
The comic curiously did not include the judge's actual ruling on the film:
"It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme."
Anyway, the attempt to attack AGW by attacking a political documentary made by a non-expert is pretty much the definition of a strawman argument.
>>7972192
The Earth's atmosphere is really big. Like really really really big. I could imagine the effects of anthropogenic CO2 to be negligibly small. Throw your best insults at me.
I thought LA was supposed to be underwater by 20 years ago
>>7972165
>Al Gore is a scientist
this is why no one takes you seriously
>>7972081
/pol/ circa 1960:
>When did you realize that anthropogenic induce infant neurological impairment is the biggest scientific hoax in history?
I mean c'mon there's no way that the negligible human presence on this Earth is enough to throw it off-balance
/pol/ circa 1980:
>When did you realize that anthropogenic cause of the massive ozone hole is the biggest scientific hoax in history?
I mean c'mon there's no way that the negligible human presence on this Earth is enough to throw it off-balance
/pol/ circa 2016:
>When did you realize that anthropogenic climate change is the biggest scientific hoax in history?
I mean c'mon there's no way that the negligible human presence on this Earth is enough to throw it off-balance
This is something I really fail to understand. Let's say it's true it's not anthropocentric. So fucking what?
Think how retarded it is in every other aspect of life
>we find out that black plague wasn't spread by Jews, so we stopped treating it.
>I used to run away from tornadoes, but I later understood they are a natural thing
>sorry, we cannot cure cancer that are not caused by human poisons.
Temperature raising is a symptom, and it will cause harm both to the earth and to the humans. You can either argue what caused it, but it's better to fix it no matter it's origin
>>7972081
Sorry, Georgy, but it doesn't matter if climate change is anthropogenic or not. Humans need to prepare ways to geoengineer the climate. You best get on board.
For example, 10,000 years ago, during the Younger Dryas, temperature dropped 15'C in a decade. Conveniently stable temps is probably a historic anomaly. Humanity needs to be ready to take steps to control that or any other disastrous possibility.
>>7972270
>massive ozone hole is the biggest scientific hoax in history?
It is.
>Ban CFC and the polar ozone holes goes away!
>CFCs banned
>Ozone 'holes' still there, because they're a natural phenomenon
Oh well, the huge evil environment hating industry got rich as fuck from selling new patented and expensive gases instead of the cheap CFCs.
>>7972081
>Layman tells layman his shit for laymen isn't up to standard.
No fucking shit, why do faggots always point to Al Gore. Of course he's said some dumb shit, he's a former politician.
>>7972280
There is no way to fix it though. Humans cannot influence climate on such a large scale.
>>7972280
>So fucking what?
It's not doing any harm, for the majority of my life there have been no change at all, see the pause.(or maybe you're a pause denier?)
Should we panic over something harmless because the environmentalists can't keep their shit together and have to try to save the world from boogeymen constantly?
>both to the earth
It doesn't give a fuck.
>and humans
Nah, humans thrive in higher temperatures. Longer growth seasons, more food, larger regions to live comfortably in.
>>7972290
Your post is proof of your degree in advanced applied bullshit and master's in denial theory:
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/9992/20141031/ozone-hole-still-shrinking-nasa.htm
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-05/07/ozone-hole
Also, you forgot about the atmospheric lead issue, which has since been solved.
>>7972319
>There is no way to fix it though
False, at least once commercially viable (in the very near future) method of negative emissions has been proposed, which is giant kelp farming.
>Humans cannot influence climate on such a large scale
With your ph.d in topological shill-ing I'm not surprised by that.
>>7972329
>Nah, humans thrive in higher temperatures.
The majority of people on this Earth and countries will be directly impacted negatively by higher temperatures.
Even Canadians, Norwegians, et. al., who at first might think they'll benefit, will see their economies contract as soon as their larger export markets start getting the heat
>>7972331
Ozone hole was largest ever recorded 2006. Why?
CFCs had decreased by 10% since their highest levels. By any logic the hole should've been shrinking since the montreal protocol. It's based on flawed studies, flawed models, and flawed reasoning.
But whatever, it's banned, deal done. Unlike CFCs that are a niche industrial gas there's no replacing of CO2 though as long we run on fossil fuels. And there's no economically or politically viable solution to it.
>>7972336
No. Everyone will enjoy it and benefit. Except maybe saudi arabia but hey deserve to burn in hell so who gives a shit.
>>7972343
>By any logic the hole should've been shrinking since the montreal protocol.
Not really, its a lot more complex than just "there are fewer CFC's in the atmosphere than before, therefore we should see a proportional decrease in the size of the hole". For one Chlorine radicals can persist in the atmosphere quite some time.
>>7972364
>Not really
Yes really. Stop making excuses for a broken model.
>>7972346
>No. Everyone will enjoy it and benefit because I say so
What a joke, not even the pope would have the audacity to say such a thing about something imposed on catholics
The entire extent of people who will "enjoy" global warming is concentrated on the American-Canadian border, and Northern Europe, that is, until their export-markets go bust and sea-level rise forces people to relocate from the coast (I'm sure the Dutch will enjoy it)
>>7972367
>Yes really.
Not really, I looked it up CFC's can persist in the atmosphere for between 41 and 108 years. When you say that CFCs use had decreased by 10% all that would do is reduce the rate at which the hole is expanding.
>>7972371
>the pope
Irrelevant to the discussion.
>until their export-markets go bust
Warm weather boost economy globally, unless they fuck up with economic policy the export market will be booming.
> sea-level rise
Have been constant rate since we started measuring. Not going to change.
>Dutch
They are already below sea level, they know how to deal with it. And like the dutch everyone else can simply adapt as needed. You seem to believe the sea will remain constant for 100 years and then suddenly jump up half a meter to surprise everyone. Because sea level variability is like half a meter pretty much everywhere anyone who's going to face a problem with the sea in the coming 50 already have a problem due to any casual storm surge coming their way.
Stop trying to cry over our supposedly doomed world so much, your arguments are obviously based on the assumption that we're all going to die and should feel guilty over it but they're plain and simply wrong.
>>7972376
>reduce the rate at which the hole is expanding.
But you posted a link that said it's shrinking. Now it's suddenly expanding again? I know you're a rabid environmentalist but even you should realize when you're directly contradicting yourself.
Maybe it's naturally variable and CFCs does jack shit because insufficient and flawed models?
>>7972379
>Warm weather boost economy globally
>The Stern Review states “Melting glaciers will initially increase flood risk and then strongly reduce water supplies, eventually threatening one sixth of the world’s population..... This is greatly detrimental to development and a 2006 World Bank study estimates reduced glacial melt will cost Peru’s energy sector between £30 and £374 million.
(Source: http://www.perusupportgroup.org.uk/peru-climate-change-water.html)
That's only one country, but I'm sure there'll be more. You seem to have an incredibly one dimensional view of things.
>>7972383
>But you posted a link that said it's shrinking.
Different guy brah. The size of the hole changes from year to year, it's strongly dependent on how cold the winter is in the Antarctic (and since 2011 the Arctic) in the Stratosphere, so yeah you'd expect it to show some seasonal variability. Unfortunately all climate models to date show that the Stratosphere should cool while the Troposphere warms (this is borne out in the data). Like I said at the start this is more complex than "there are less CFC's now than in the past".
>>7972379
>Irrelevant to the discussion.
It was a figure of speech, it's only irrelevant if one of the parties is unable to understand those
>Warm weather boost economy globally
Wrong, the majority of countries will see their GDP negatively impacted, plus the sensation of heat in the majority of countries in the world will be very negatively impacted, stop pretending SoCal style climate is a universal ideal
>Not going to change.
You have nothing to base this on given that what we know
>They are already below sea level, they know how to deal with it.
Knowing how deal with it != it's a good thing, dealing with it costs money and puts stress on the economy.
Stop conflating my contempt for /pol/tards with "crying", humans have been proven to fundamentally alter the atmosphere before with the lead and ozone issues.
Luckily in the real world people know better than listening to the "enlightened" elites such as yourself looking over us plebs, and that's all that matters, and since anything further in this discussion will be you insisting upon strawmen, I'm out, and as you say here "leve lá a bicicleta"
>>7972081
You will never again post pseudoscience.
And that's an order.
>>7972239
1 degree increase in temperature can kill millions of species, disrupting the entire ecosystem of the world.
It doesn't matter how big it is.
>>7972390
> increase flood risk
by 0,0½%, maybe, because temperature increase haven't followed expectations.
>£30 million
ohnoes the humanities. I'm sure a nation with $217 billion in GDP will be destroyed by that.
Swapping out their fossil infrastructure for memenergy will cost a hundred times more than that.
Literally no one knows.
No one here is a climatologist.
No one here is a climatologist that has been spending years and years studying and understanding this topic.
The only way to make your decision is through feelings.
>>7972407
>by 0,0½%, maybe,
What are you basing this figure on? Surely you've not just pulled it from thin air to support your own argument. Also what about the loss of water?
>30-374 million
>Economies are strictly linear, if one part of an economy takes a hit it doesn't multiply and hit another part.
>>7972396
>Wrong
Right
>You have nothing to base this on given that what we know
Neither do you
>dealing with it costs money and puts stress on the economy.
It stimulates the economy to build sea walls, also because sea level rise is constant it means it's natural and postglacial so it was unavoidable.
>fundamentally alter the atmosphere
I don't think you know what fundamentally means. Changing a trace gas concentration is certainly not that.
>Luckily in the real world people know better than listening to the "enlightened" elites such as yourself looking over us plebs
Thankfully politicial inertia is huge. Only some nations like germany tried to go full retard/renewable and their pioneering spirit serves as a warning example to all other conservative countries. Your zealot ideology will be dead and forgotten in a decade.
>>7972409
Your same argument could support pedophiles.
Good job you disgusting childrapist.
>>7972404
>1 degree increase in temperature can kill millions of species
If they can't handle 1 degree difference, then they weren't fit enough. Natural selection.
>>7972280
>it will cause harm
How exactly?
>better to fix it
With a global meme tax?
It's a fraud, they - the powers that be - want your energy. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. You'll see!
>Ozone depletion boogeyman
Seriously this is a dead hype horse.
Fun facts.
>Ozone is formed by Oxygen reacting with UV radiation. This means that during the low UV environment of polar winters the formation will drop and for once chemicals can take their time to degrade ozone and lower the concentration in said area. But no one lives there so why the big care?
>Ozone blocking UV radiation causes the ozone to be destroyed. It's in its job description to get rekt. As such it's in constant and rapid turnover and for the chemical degradation of ozone to tip this balance significantly the concentrations would need to be enormous.
>Ozone blocks UVB radiation. UVB is associated with squamous cell carcinoma.
>UVA causes the dreaded malignant melanoma. If you go out in high UV index without sunscreen you're stupid anyway because you're getting a more dangerous form of cancer than ozone depletion could give you.
>Was it wrong to ban it?
Nah, it's replaceable.
>Would we all have died without the ban?
Nah, we'd at most see a peak in epidemiological data, as with all other pollutant we're exposed to, not to mention lifestyle habits, drugs and medication damage we're subjected to.
WHY isn't this the type of thing that can be presented and countered with facts?
I thougth the ozone argument was so 2008, and we've moved on to more appropriate metrics for climate change?
Why is it so hard to say "here is this data showing this" and thne having someone else say "well this data is wrong/doesn't represent human caused climate change because dadadada?"
>>7972424
Your same argument could support mass murderers.
Good job you disgusting psycho.
>>7972379
>the pope
>Irrelevant to the discussion.
Wew lad, that is how you identify AGW as a new age religion. Obviously the old sky fairies from the holy lands don't cut it anymore but it has all the ingredients.
>Doom prophecies, End of Days
>Enormous propaganda bombardments
>Priests aka climate scientists whose qualifications can really be anything the AGW church wants, obedience to the dogma is mandatory however.
>Tithes - carbon tax
>A large flock indoctrinated as children when their critical thinking defenses were undeveloped
>Heretics aka deniers
The parallels are quite astounding really, the Inquisition is on chap!
>>7972495
Nothing wrong with mass murderers as long as they kill the right people. What happened to tolerance? You envrionuts are supposed to be liberal treehugging BLM protestors.
>>7972081
Few weeks ago when "climate scientists" are stumped over the fact that the earth has warm up everywhere but the south pole last year during the summer.
Heat records where broken everywhere but thier. That has not happened for the past 130 years.
It usually only happens in a few spots not everywhere.
>>7972505
>Nothing wrong with mass murderers
Psycho detected
>>7972506
>"climate scientists" are stumped
... because the sensational-news
headline said so? L0L at gullible naïveté
>>7972517
No they said they don't know why and they never seen it happen before. Showing they know fuck all about the climate.
>>7972525
>they don't know why and
>they never seen it happen before
>therefore they know fuck all
nice hyperbole, journo student
This fucking shit again...
>>7972383
Before the ban the area of the ozone hole was increasing logarithmically. After the ban, the hole has stayed about the same size, slightly decreasing.
>>7972404
That doesn't make any sense. In a given day the species will experience a range of temperatures. If the average goes up by 1, they're still not likely to be exposed to any temperatures they weren't already.
>>7972506
>Climatologists hate this cool trick invented by a local mom!
>>7972616
It was posted on scientific american Web site. Fuck head.
>>7972621
Scientific American! Oh. My. God. I just got rekt. Obviously SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN is the most scientific journal ever. I mean, it has the word SCIENTIFIC right in the name!
>>7972623
>attacking the source
>>7972627
>defending popsci clickbait without even linking it
>>7972627
You brought the source up to defend your point. Pot calling the kettle black.
>>7972613
You fundamentally don't understand ecobiology. Which is fine, but those are the facts.
So can anyone give me ONE credible, scientific argument that climate change is not a big deal that we should work to stop now.
ONE
>>7972648
>a fallacy
No it's actually not. If you want to start analyzing things as fallacies you should take the time to analyze the argument in context.
>>7972650
To dismiss something by simply laughing at the title is as fallacious as you can get
>>7972646
>shifting the burden of proof
>>7972646
Enabling a lie of this magnitude will not end well for you or I. You want a religion? Go to church.
>>7972673
The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim, in this case that is the AGW proponents
>>7972694
Not him, but here's some: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=28E83D4569A62218F9413CEFBD792D99.ip-10-40-2-73
>>7972709
>http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=28E83D4569A62218F9413CEFBD792D99.ip-10-40-2-73
Hurr, durr the 0.3% consensus.
>>7972755
>100% of climate science papers did *not* say that 1+1=2, therefore there is no consensus that 1+1=2
You are scum and you know you are scum.
>>7972709
Only 3896 papers supported the AGW position. That means nothing in contrast to crazy-eyed Youtubers who told me that it's a lizard alien conspiracy.
FUCKING HOAXFAGS GET THE FUCK OUT REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
t. someone with a BS in Biology and working on a MS in Biochemistry
>>7972768
Butt-hurt to the max. Sorry but only 71 papers out of tens of thousands said that we need to be forking over our cash to the Church of Climate Change.
Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change . 1David R. Legates, 2Willie Soon, 3William M. Briggs, 4Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
>>7972782
>Church of climate change
You probably unrionically use the term evolutionism too you massive faggot
>>7972787
I'm an atheist who believes in evolution. And I believe in science which is why I don't believe in Climate Change Crap.
Unlike you, I do not practice the secular religion of progressivism. Especially the greenie-socialist sect of that faith.
Them's some good science!
>>7972793
>Believes in evolution
>Believes
Please never talk about science again you halfwit
>>7972782
There are many more than tens of thousands papers in the entire corpus of scientific knowledge, obviously we should count those as well. Still doesn't change the fact that 97% of climatologists support AGW.
>>7972778
bait/10
>>7972799
Go on and tell me why what I've been studying is wrong according to your GED education and youtube documentaries.
>>7972802
You have a bachelor's degree, you don't know shit about shit.
Humble thyself before one of the PhDs on the board proceeds to blow you the fuck out.
>>7972796
>>7972798
You wouldn't know science if it smacked you on the head. Go back to your Lysenkoism, and Gaia worshipping.
Popularity = science. Possibly the stupidest belief I've come across in a long time. You know the word gullible isn't in the dictionary?
Classical mechanics was a "consensus", quantum mechanics ended it
Fixed space and time physics was a "consensus", relativity ended it
Fixed continents was a "consensus", continental drift ended it
Phlogiston theory of fire was a "consensus", combustion theory ended it.
>>7972782
>only 71 papers out of tens of thousands said that we need to be forking over our cash to the Church of Climate Change.
This is turning out to be one of those universal laws of the internet, like Godwin's law. Someone should probably give it a name:
>Any argument against anthropogenic climate change will eventually be revealed as stemming from political fears, not science.
>>7972808
>Classical mechanics was a "consensus", quantum mechanics ended it
>Fixed space and time physics was a "consensus", relativity ended it
>Fixed continents was a "consensus", continental drift ended it
>Phlogiston theory of fire was a "consensus", combustion theory ended it.
You clearly have no fucking clue what science is or how it works.
>>7972808
Cool false equivalencies brah
Have you written a paper yet alone read one on climate change or are you here to shitpost?
>>7972808
>Go back to your Lysenkoism, and Gaia worshipping.
Lunatic buzzwords. Good start to the post.
>Popularity = science.
Classic strawman, nice, nice.
>Classical mechanics was a "consensus", quantum mechanics ended it
>Fixed space and time physics was a "consensus", relativity ended it
>Fixed continents was a "consensus", continental drift ended it
>Phlogiston theory of fire was a "consensus", combustion theory ended it.
Ah and to top it all of, the piece de resistance, the 'ol "scientists were wrong in the past, therefore they are wrong now." Look how this gracefully hides the fact that it uses consensus science like quantum mechanics, relativity, continental drift, and combustion theory to argue against consensus science. Ah beautiful. If only such sophistry could be crystallized in it's purest form and framed. It brings a tear to my eye.
>>7972812
You clearly couldn't mount a substantive scientific argument if you life depended on it.
Consensus didn't work for classical mechanics
Consensus didn't work for fixed space/time
Consensus didn't work for phlogiston theory
Consensus didn't work for fixed continents
Consensus didn't for atoms are the smallest piece of matter...
But as if by magic, consensus for a heavily politicized belief system funded by organizations that want $Billions and $Billions of dollars is true!
>>7972812
>be you
>get utterly and completely blown the fuck out
>"I-I know! I'll say he doesn't know what science is!"
Kys
>>7972813
>absurd argument that "consensus = truth" wiped out by several counter-examples
>paroxysms of denial.
Have you faced up to the face that Climate Change "Science" is unfalsifiable and therefore not science.
>>7972819
>Consensus didn't work for classical mechanics
>Consensus didn't work for fixed space/time
>Consensus didn't work for phlogiston theory
>Consensus didn't work for fixed continents
The only reason you know this is because the consensus of scientists told you so. So until the consensus of climatologists proves AGW wrong, SHUT THE FUCK UP.
>>7972826
Oh mighty shit-head, science never was and never will be settled by popularity.
First and foremost, a scientific theory must be falsifiable. Climate Change "Science" is not falsifiable and therefore is not science.
>>7972824
So is gravity a lie? Is the theory of evolution a conspiracy? Is magnetism a hoax? Are atoms fake? Are converging lenses actually diverging lenses? Are cells a conspiracy?
>>7972828
Cool, where's your evidence that disproves the current evidence?
>>7972827
Last time I checked most of those theories weren't paid for by people and organizations who were trying to make $100s of Billions of dollars of it.
>>7972820
>Say something outrageously dumb.
>People insult you
>Get mad
>>7972824
>absurd argument that "consensus = truth" wiped out by several
No-one has claimed that though. You just don't understand what's being said.
>>7972819
Consensus isn't a road to truth, it's a tool for evaluating the current views of exerts in a field.
Also, go read "The Relativity of Wrong". Your view of "correctness" in science is so fundamentally broken it's not even funny.
There's a copy here:
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
>>7972824
It has nothing to do with truth, idiot. Science is not about truth, it's about facts. Facts can be wrong, but until you PROVE them wrong by replacing them with better facts they are still facts. AGW is a fact, get over it, loser.
>>7972833
Last time I checked scientists in the field of climate related research made fuck all. Sure they're greedy fucks for making 80k a year working in Antarctica.
>>7972839
Where's your science that disproves the current?
>>7972838
>Facts can be wrong
You get the oxymoronic statement of the year award.
Climate Change "Science" is unfalsifiable and therefore not science.
>>7972845
Prove that its wrong then
>>7972833
Which scientists are making $100s of billions? Are you fucking retarded? They are getting funding and a measly paycheck, the same thing every scientists gets. If climatologists are automatically shills because they seek funding, then all scientists are shills. This is the problem with your retarded conspiracy logic, it can be applied to anything and anyone. But that's the point, since you can't contend with the facts, you must resort to baseless lunacy to reach your preconceived conclusion. you know it and I know it that you have no scientific basis for your position. You will literally post anything as long as it confirms what you believe, like that 0.3% crap. That's the difference between a scientist and an ideologue.
>>7972848
Prove what you're saying then. Prove it. Should be quite easy if its false.
>>7972846
I said it several times. Its unfalsifiable. Like astrology, any outcome becomes compatible with the theory.
>>7972845
You just said it yourself, classical mechanics was a fact, and it was wrong. If you don't understand the difference between facts and truth you know nothing about science.
>>7972852
That's not proof. Do you even know how the scientific community operates? We will kill for a chance to disprove something. If I could properly disprove AGW I'd be making bank right now.
>>7972851
I said it was unfalsifiable several times. Stop pretending that wasn't said. Again, like astrology. No matter what happens, it fits with the belief system.
>>7972853
Stop putting words in my mouth. I did not say that. I said it was a consensus.
Can't deal with the unfalsifiability, can you?
>>7972852
>Climate change is false! Look at this graph from /pol/ showing the troposphere!
>Climate change is unfalsifiable!
Choose one. Hint: No one will accept the second one.
>>7972857
>Getting mad because you can't disprove something
I'm willing to bet you never even got close to getting a formal education in the scientific field. Go on back to /pol/ if you don't want to be professional in your scientific debates.
>>7972860
>no one will accept the second one.
A very poor excuse for not having counter-example.
Because you don't have one. Climate Change is truly unfalsifiable.
>>7972081
I knew it was a farce when I opened my first science book in like second grade and it said plain as day that the earth continuously changes and that we have had several ice ages, and reason lead me to deduce that clearly the climate changed in a way to move out of the ice ages and so that its a natural occurrence.
>>7972861
>Look I can't provide a plausible falsifiability criterion.
You climastrologists are a sad lot.
All you have to do is provide a real, and realistic falsifiability criterion. But you don't, because you can't.
>>7972862
I'm willing to be that you're resorting to the lowest level of argumentation, insults, because you can't provide a real and plausible falsifiability criterion.
>>7972870
Prove your point that AGW is false then. I'd love you to. You would make shitloads of money doing so.
>>7972863
You made the wrong choice. At least you had a chance of convincing people if you posted enough infographics from /pol/.
It's so easy to falsify AGW. All you would have to do is for instance show that CO2 does not act as greenhouse gas, or we aren't adding CO2 to the atmosphere, or the long term trend is cooling. You have to be a delusional idiot to argue AGW isn't falsifiable.
there is no mathematical model of AGW that can be rigorously observed
AGW is built around a premise that must be accepted in order for the rest to fall into place
the false premise at the heart of AGW cannot stand up to academic rigor which is why followers of the Church of AGW will viciously attack anyone who dare question it
science is supposed to be about asking questions not shying away from them
>>7972875
Sounds like a cop out
Prove that its not a science then.
>>7972877
https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/is-climate-science-falsifiable/
>>7972873
Gave up huh? After a pathetic strawman argument. Almost no-one says that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. And almost no one says that we aren't adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Those are just absurd and wildly inaccurate mis-descriptions of skeptics. See the survey of skeptics results, pic related.
The real question is how strong/dangerous is the effect.
Still haven't answered the falsifiability question. You won't because you can't.
>>7972880
Easy there is not any plausible observation that is quantitatively and causally connected to anthropocentric CO2 and predicted beforehand; which if it leads to a negative outcome will falsify AGW. Any and all outcomes are explained away. Just like astrology.
>>7972859
So classical mechanics was never a fact? Of course it was, but let's just say you're right, fact is synonymous with truth. Is quantum mechanics a fact? Is evolution a fact? If yes, then you are saying these theories will always be true and will never be replaced by a new consensus. Why should we accept this when you just argued that the consensus has been wrong in the past? If not, you disbelieve all science, not just climatology.
>>7972882
>blog post
You'll have to try harder, Frances
>>7972891
You have an unfortunate inability to distinguish between theories and facts. Classical mechanics is a theory, as is evolution.
Climate Change isn't even much of a theory because its unfalsifiable. At least classical mechanics theory has that going for it.
The last physicist, Richard Feynman said "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts," you on the other hand believe that "Science is the popularity of the experts." And that's sad.
>>7972884
>Almost no-one says that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas.
That doesn't respond to the point jackass. It's obviously falsifiable because it's contingent on empirically measured facts. Everyone knows things fall when you drop them, that doesn't mean gravity isn't falsifiable. Fucking retard.
>The real question is how strong/dangerous is the effect.
You just destroyed your own argument. If AGW says that climate forcings are in some range then all you have to do to falsify it is to show the forcings are outside of that range. Saying an effect is strong is immediately falsifiable.
>>7972894
>can't respond to getting utterly destroyed
>shit posts
You'll have to try harder /pol/tard
>>7972081
Not related but why everyone starts using proper name?
>>7972895
>Classical mechanics is a theory, as is evolution.
Irrelevant, all facts are theories. Classical mechanics was once a fact as much as evolution is now. Again, how do you know that evolution is true? It's because scientists have found a large amount of evidence for it and agree that it is the best theory to explain that evidence. But this could be disproved tomorrow if we found out that everything on Earth was designed by aliens. Evolution might not be true, but it's true *as far as we know*. Facts != truth. This is something you should have learned in high school. Did you attend?
>The last physicist, Richard Feynman said "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts,"
The irony of course is that you are appealing to Richard Feynman's wisdom as an expert while arguing that one should not appeal to expertise. In the real world, consensus does matter. But this is all irrelevant as in order to prove the consensus wrong, you would have to prove them wrong using science. That is far outside your ability, so you are talking out of your ass.
>>7972912
>In the real world, consensus does matter
>facts don't matter, it's the opinions of others that do
>facts don't equal truth
Wew lad
That level of sophistry...
I seriously hope that you are in no position to exert influence over anyone
>>7972922
I'm sorry that you don't understand basic science.
>>7972081
Doesn't matter what you think, the methane traps are already triggered like a SJW presented with an healthy diet.
Personally i'm saving up for my cyborgisation, it's going to be less expensive than securing a spot under the domed cities.
>>7972922
>facts don't matter
Shameless strawman. That's the exact opposite of what I'm saying. AGW is a fact. It is the truth *as far as we know*. That is all that science tells us, the best approximation of the truth that we have at any one moment. So your idiotic analogy fails on several levels, since you are using current facts that disproved former facts to argue against a current fact as if it a former fact. Again, if truth is synonymous with fact, then you must treat evolution and quantum mechanics with the same skepticism. But you won't, because you are arguing from an ideological position, not a scientific one.
Respond to all my points or concede, shitposter.
>>7972932
you haven't provided any facts at all and you've been shown to care only about consensus and fitting in
climate science is akin to tarot card reading
i treat all things with the same skepticism, however upon further investigation you will see that quantum mechanics and evolution withstand academic rigor whereas climate science can not
quantum mechanics has been mathematically modeled and such model can be observed
you can look at geology and the fossil record and see that evolution has occurred, it's got the supporting evidence
AGW has no mathematical model that can be observed, and the geological and historical record tells us that the Earth has been undergoing climate change since it came into being. In fact there were periods of far more severe climate change than what is concurring when humans didn't even exist!
>>7973025
>you haven't provided any facts at all
That's what scientific papers are for.
>you've been shown to care only about consensus and fitting in
No, I care about the facts. The consensus is only a shortcut to figuring out what the facts are.
>i treat all things with the same skepticism, however upon further investigation you will see that quantum mechanics and evolution withstand academic rigor whereas climate science can not
Who determines academic rigor? It certainly isn't you. You know nothing about science. It's the scientists. If AGW did not withstand academic rigor then it would not be widely published. So move on to your conspiracy logic, it's really the only thing you have and I already debunked it.
>quantum mechanics has been mathematically modeled and such model can be observed
So has AGW. There are plenty of quacks who argue that quantum mechanics is false or quantum mechanics is unfalsifiable. This is because they don't understand what quantum mechanics is and have an ideological need to deny consensus physics. You are no different.
>you can look at geology and the fossil record and see that evolution has occurred, it's got the supporting evidence
There are plenty of people who deny the evidence right in front of their eyes. You are no different. You selectively deny the facts.
>AGW has no mathematical model that can be observed
Lie.
>and the geological and historical record tells us that the Earth has been undergoing climate change since it came into being. In fact there were periods of far more severe climate change than what is concurring when humans didn't even exist!
non-sequitur
>>7973039
show the mathematical model for AGW that can be observed and has been able to be overlain new occurrences and hold up to them
i won't be waiting because i don't want to die in my computer chair waiting however many years i've got left because it will never be coming
you read a few popsci articles and get drawn in by the alarmism and you hopped on board hoping you'd look smart, you never questioned anything you just accepted it, can't blame you though
most people lack the ability to formally reason and you're clearly one of them
>>7973045
>lalalalalala the masses of evidence I argue against 24/7 don't actually exist lalalalala
http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/
>>7973045
>you read a few popsci articles and get drawn in by the alarmism and you hopped on board hoping you'd look smart, you never questioned anything you just accepted it,
You realize that people don't just blindly accept AGW "because the man on the news said so", right?
There are actual papers you can read.
FUCKING READ THEM.
>show the mathematical model for AGW that can be observed and has been able to be overlain new occurrences and hold up to them
Which model? There are shitloads of them.
If I was feeling charitable (and you've ruined that already), I'd suspect that you were getting confused by the fact that AGW isn't a single claim or prediction. It's a conglomerate idea made out of a bunch of different models, datasets and theories. Just like evolution, if you need an analogy.
As it stands though, you're just asserting the same stupid shit over and over. Claiming the <X> scientific theory is a unfalsifiable has been a standard denial since the days when creationists were taken seriously. It was stupid then, and it's stupid now - point out a SPECIFIC part of AGW you don't like, and you'll find reams of papers that describe falsification requirements. But if you just wave your hands around wildly, of course your not going to get precise responses.
>>7972081
We will see this summer if it's bullshit or not. "Experts" said it will be the worst dryout in the history ever and temperature will rise far beyond recorded levels.
>>7973074
>We will see this summer if it's bullshit or not. "Experts" said it will be the worst dryout in the history ever and temperature will rise far beyond recorded levels.
Oh for fuck's sake.
Why would you participate in a discussion about climate change when you clearly don't even know what the word 'climate' MEANS.
>>7973079
I'm not a denier, but doesn't he have a point? Scientific theories are supposed to be predictive, so if their prediction is false...
>>7973083
Predicting weather is called meteorology, not climatology.
>>7973079
Are you afraid that your claims are about to get hard-tested in a few months ?
>>7973083
>X IS UNFALSIFIABLE
>No it isn't, there are plenty of good tests for X.
>WHAT ABOUT <RETARDED TEST>?
>No, that test is stupid.
>HAH! SEE, X IS UNFALSIFIABLE!
Jesus Fucking Christ.
Why am I still participating in this shitshow of a thread?
>>7973090
> Measuring the temperature and the dryout thats been warned and comparing it to the previous years is a retarded test.
I guess the definition of your official AGW test is to bullshit about AGW and call people retarded who question the legitimacy of it.
Oh well, you've surprised nobody.
>>7973095
>> Measuring the temperature and the dryout thats been warned and comparing it to the previous years is a retarded test.
CORRECT. THAT IS EXACTLY RIGHT.
>>7973099
Then why did you get batshit scared in the previous post when you read that people will have a chance to test that first hand ?
>>7973103
>Then why did you get batshit scared in the previous post when you read that people will have a chance to test that first hand ?
Because the test is dumb, and reveals that you either don't understand the subject or don't actually care what's true.
Also, mass retardation in the face of global disasters normally scares me. It's like being on a bus full of drunk assholes with a blind driver approaching a cliff. All you can do is try to shout "brakes!" louder than they're shouting "gas!".
>>7973105
First you said correct, thats exactly right and now again you're saying the same test is dumb. Then you say something about mass retardation and called everyone a retard.
You're clearly grasping at straws here. I really hope you're trolling. I'd rather get trolled than to meet someone so desperately scared and deranged
>>7973111
>First you said correct, thats exactly right and now again you're saying the same test is dumb.
>BASIC LITERACY IS HARD!
Actually, that might explain why you don't know what the word "climate" means. Maybe you really are barely literate?
>You're clearly grasping at straws here.
Said the science denier.
>I really hope you're trolling.
I wasn't, but it's starting to sound like it doesn't really matter what I post.
If you're either too committed or too stupid to understand what I'm writing, maybe I should just call you an ignorant fuckface. It'd be a lot faster way to convey my thoughts on this discussion.
>I'd rather get trolled than to meet someone so desperately scared and deranged
Now you can do both at the same time:
Guess what? You don't understand what a trend is, and you're an ignorant fuckface!
>>7973116
0/10
awful attempt to trolling. Just like the rest of AGWtards
There is no need for evidence. Simply look at the scale of our industry, and the death we've wrought on the ecosystems of the planet. Consequences are inevitable.
>>7973120
> There's no need for evidence to believe in AGW
:^)
>>7973118
>>7973122
I don't mean AGW in particular, but rather the notion that the environment is fucked and we're going to start having big problems. The concept of AGW in particular isn't important.
![Derp_ed19a1_792429[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Rlj7oy1.jpg "Derp_ed19a1_792429[1].jpg")
>>7973124
This guy knows what he's talking about because he used the word "science" in his post.
I have another uncited MSpaint chart with no backing of evidence or anything that supports AGW here.
>>7973120
>Simply look at the scale of our industry, and the death we've wrought on the ecosystems of the planet.
Thats... not really that compelling. Particularly when we can point to things like changes in atmospheric isotope balance
>>7973130
>This guy knows what he's talking about because he used the word "science" in his post.
This "denier literacy" thing is becoming less and less of a joke.
>uncited
OH FOR FUCKS SAKE.
READING IS A BASIC LIFE SKILL
>>7973136
> i call people /pol/
now I know you're memeing. No wonder why you were so butthurt the entire thread lol.
>>7973137
Listen here buddy, I don't need any of this global warming nonsense. It's clear that it's a chinese communist leftist ploy to ruin America's heavy industry. Trump said so.
>>7973124
Can someone inform me on how they "reconstructed" temperature in the years where they literally had no means of recording or even measuring data with a scientifically accurate standards ? What is the definitive proof they can put on the table that makes it an evidence to say these were the actual temperatures ?
>>7973138
I just got here actually, you can check the number of unique posters.
You still need to go back to your containment board.
>>7973130
my bad. god gave us control of this earth so global warming actually doesnt exist. if you arent strawmanning for that reason, then you just want to...i dont know.
>>7973137
> gets batshit scared when people will test his bullshit claim this summer first hand.
> omg ur retarded ur denying my bullshit posts and doodles which means ur denying science xO
sad...really.
>>7973141
This is a board where you have to support your claims with evidence, not with ad-hominems.
I am in my appropriate board, unlike you
>>7973143
Why would anyone be 'scared' if climate change isn't true? Most people would be relieved.
I think the deniers are more scared about the possibility of it being true. You're projecting.
>>7973140
There are a number of proxies for historical temp records
http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/topics/proxies/paleoclimate.html
>>7973144
>ad hominems
Classic tell-tale sign of a /pol/tard
When will they learn to stop using this term inappropriately? Retards.
>>7973140
>Can someone inform me on how they "reconstructed" temperature in the years where they literally had no means of recording or even measuring data with a scientifically accurate standards?
Yes?
I would assume that's described in great detail in the paper those numbers a drawn from.
Or maybe it's just the word "chicken" repeated over and over. When you argue like a science denier, anything is possible!
>>7973143
>Stil has no idea what happened in the last two dozen posts.
Don't worry little denier, you'll catch up eventually. Just keep sounding out those long words.
>>7973145
Nope. I'm looking forward to this summer and test if the "experts" prophecies will coem true about record levels of temperature and extreme drying out.
>>7973152
>test if the "experts" prophecies will coem true
You still really don't get this "climate" thing, do you?
I know it feels like ages when you try to read a post containing words longer than four letters, but one year really isn't worth shit as a counterpoint to multi-decade climate trends.
>>7973158
> more chickenshit scared ad-hominems
We all get you're a retard. You don't have to keep proving that.
>>7973158
Why even bother arguing with him? He has his mind made up and it's not going to change. Rational arguments rarely change people's minds about these kinds of things anyways, especially when you entangle them with identity politics.
It's more fun to insult him.
>>7973159
>I'm sorry but this method does not constitute as evidence by any standards at all.
Why not?
>>7973158
So when will all this end of the world shit actually happen?
And looking at not just decades long trends but eons long trends is what destroys AGW
>>7973162
> ill insult the people asking for evidence because thats what AGWtards do
You're right about that.
>>7973168
You're not asking for evidence in good faith. Any evidence presented to you, you're just going to shoot down with some filmsy excuse such as >>7973163 or assert that scientists have a vested interest in claiming the things they do (circumstantial ad hominem)
So why not call you a retard cockgobbler? It's more satisfying in the end.
>>7973163
Because the methods are based on completely arbitrary correlations and holds no weight for re-evaluability or testing.
>>7973159
>I'm sorry but this method does not constitute as evidence by any standards at all.
Let's just add "evidence" to the list of words you'll learn eventually, shall we?
>Please stay in reddit you anti-science hippie shitposter
It's no fun mocking you when you don't even try to sound intelligent.
>>7973161
>ad-hominems
The word list just keeps on growing!
>>7973167
>And looking at not just decades long trends but eons long trends is what destroys AGW
I'm sorry, but that's too buttfuck retarded for me to even parse into english.
>>7973170
> Any evidence presented to you...
Again, evidence has to be achieved using the scientific method. Proving something is not a cakewalk. You immediately resorted to ad-hominems when someone else asked how they get those temperature records and now you're failing to deliver the "proof" you're so desperately looking for. It's not really hard to understand why you're not being taken seriously.
>>7972081
the hoax theory doesn't really make any sense. Hoaxes are pretty hard to pull off when you have many different governments agencies collaborating on the research.
You also have evidence from different fields of science to support agw, like what evolution has. It's not just climatologists working on the research. When you have many different governments and fields of science working on agw, then a hoax is kinda improbable.
Besides, what would they have to gain from it anyway? more support for nuclear power and fuel efficient cars?
>>7973172
What arbitrary correlations? You're just spouting vague buzzwords without making an argument.
>>7973173
> more ad-hominems
> that's too buttfuck retarded
> It's no fun mocking you when you don't even try to sound intelligent.
That was a great defense in the name of proving AGW. I am so convinced that it's real now :^)
>>7973179
> Doesn't have any proof or even attempted to explain how they proved the previous years temperatures
> Gets mad when people point out it's nothing but correlations
wew lad
>>7973173
>I just won't respond to any arguments instead I'll just call them retarded
Proof that AGW is flawed at its base premise and if you point that out you will be attacked
>>7973181
>That was a great defense in the name of proving AGW. I am so convinced that it's real now :^)
I'm sorry, shitposting child, but your smiley face doesn't really compete with the dumb shit in all your other posts.
Want to try again?
PS: Why would you assume I'm trying to convince you? You're clearly not up for that.
>>7973176
>scientific method
>proving something is not a cakewalk
scientific method doesn't involve proving anything except that claims are false. Go read some popper, kid.
Two neckbeards arguing on the internet has no effect on whether theories of AGW are taken seriously within academia and the scientific community, btw.
Convince me why you're worth convincing. Do you have any policy-making power at all? Or are you just a loser trolling on 4chan because you have nothing productive to do? Why should I care about citing the mountains of evidence to you when you're not arguing in good faith? You're not even open to the idea of being proved wrong.
>>7973183
>doesn't have any proof for an entire field of climatology with thousands of papers that can be googled
Uh....
>>7973184
>Proof that AGW is flawed at its base premise and if you point that out you will be attacked
Yup, it's the moron's defense.
>When I say idiotic things they call me an idiot. Therefore I'm right!
>>7973185
> Desperately fails to prove his bullshit claims
> Y-you guys are not worthy and thats why I can't prove them
there there kid.
>>7973194
> Desperately fails to prove his bullshit claims
The fuck? I gave up on that way further up in the thread.
Now I'm actually focusing on the real root of the problem: That I was trying to argue with a convinced idiot.
>>7973177
>Besides, what would they have to gain from it anyway?
Literal billions of dollars from instituting a meme tax and paving the way for industries that are invested in pushing AGW so that they don't face competition from traditional energy industry
The coal industry already took a bullet to the head from the EPA
tens of thousands of jobs lost, an entire state plunged into poverty (West Virginia) and for what?
So that a bunch of hippies can feel good while someone gets really fucking rich
Follow the money and you'll see exactly why AGW is forced down people's throats starting in elementary school
>>7973189
To be completely honest with you I DO believe in AGW :^)
Not because I've seen any evidence but because this guys logic right here : >>7973120
Ofcourse it should be heating up. We are burning tons of shit inside and there is no exhaust pipe. And I actually do believe that this summer will be dry as fuck compared to previous years.
But it's just fun to make fu of people who fail to prove their claims and they know they can't prove anything. Seeing them resort to ad-hominems is even more fun :^)
>>7973194
Nobody wants to waste their time arguing with someone arguing in bad faith. Not worth the effort.
>>7973172
you think nobody's ever studied how temperature affects the growth patterns of long-lived sessile organisms in real time? you're in over your head, kid.
ah, the small-minded WE CAN'T KNOW NUFFIN ideology of the denier...
>>7973176
>evidence has to be achieved using the scientific method. Proving something is not a cakewalk.
those are all English words, yes, but you've strung them together in a way that's just a bunch of babble. using scientific terminology doesn't make you smart, let alone right.
now if you're alluding to methodological deficiencies in evidence-gathering, that's a valid concern. however, you've gone straight from "I think this evidence is unreliable" to "I'm going to ignore this evidence" and skipped the crucial step of showing why the methodology is bad.
>>7973183
>nothing but correlations, a plausible mechanism, and a decent degree of control
FTFY
>>7972081
9.
http://www.baka.com.au/environment/great-barrier-reef-coral-bleaching-more-widespread-than-first-thought-surveys-reveal-20160331-gnux7x.html
>>7973199
>le xD i epic troll'd them guise look they even got so mad they called me stupid on an anonymous Laotian crocodile-wrangling subreddit
lmao get a life dude
>>7973192
The burden of proof lies with you to prove AGW and since the premise is fallacious, so is everything that follows
You can even discount that and accept the fallacy as truth and you still cannot find one shred of evidence that climate change is man made, especially when you look at trends spanning millennia
>>7973200
> I cut the trees and count the rings, which tells me what the temperature was like 10000 years ago
> even though the oldest tree is less than 5000 years old and thats not even the tree that is tested
> w-why are you guys making fun of my """""evidence"""""
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>7973198
>Literal billions of dollars from instituting a meme tax and paving the way for industries that are invested in pushing AGW so that they don't face
What industries are you talking about? Alternative energy companies like solar and wind? It seems to me like they don't have much influence and money compared to the oil companies. I don't see how this conspiracy works.
>>7973205
> lmao get a life dude
le no :^D
>>7973208
retard, they use ice cores for radioactive dating, not trees.
Now I know you're arguing in bad faith, thanks for convincing me not to waste my time :)
>>7973206
>you need to show evidence that AGW is real
>but AGW is fake
>therefore any evidence that it's real must also be fake
nice circular argument, retard.
>especially when you look at trends spanning millennia
If we're looking at a possible effect taking place over the course of a century or so, why would we care about a ten-thousand-year trendline? I really hope you're just trolling, because the only alternative is that you're unaware of how terminally stupid that reasoning is
>>7973206
>The burden of proof lies with you to prove AGW and since the premise is fallacious, so is everything that follows
This is my new favorite sentence in this entire thread.
It simultaneously implies that an argument is logically invalid and that additional evidence is needed to support it, despite those two things being completely at odds with each other.
It's like they tried to step onto two different rafts of stupid at them same time, and instead fell into the ocean of greater stupid.
>>7973208
>"""""
Come on, you can do better than that.
>>7973211
>Now I know you're arguing in bad faith
It took you this long to figure it out?
I've already given up completely - grab some popcorn.
>>7973211
>radioactive dating
it's stable isotope dating, actually. you get mass fractionation effects from evaporation, producing an isotopic signal in the oxygen found in ice.
also, they can get paleoatmosphere samples directly from bubbles in ice going back thousands of years.
>>7973209
They don't have much money because cheaper and more reliable alternatives exist and they know that as long as those things exist their money machine can never take off
But they are very influential and you see that with the how many worshippers the Church of AGW has been able to gain
AGW is dogmatic as fuck and that's a major red flag for anything especially something that operates under the guise of science
If all of these climate models have failed in their predictions then why are they still standing?
Because of dogma and because anyone who disagrees will be ridiculed and ostracized
Fuck even questioning it will get you attacked as can be seen ITT
You don't even have to debunk the myth the simple act of asking questions is fast reaching taboo status
![carbon-dating-flaws-300x224[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/tjoiogb.jpg "carbon-dating-flaws-300x224[1].jpg")
>>7973211
> radioactive dating is evidence or even reliable
Oh god please stop embarrassing yourself you AGWtard. I knew your inexistant """evidence""" was a joke but I never knew it would fall apart this bad.
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html
>>7973218
> Call them stupid until they accept AGW
is that why all AGWtards are stupid ? :^)
>>7973218
>It's like they tried to step onto two different rafts of stupid at them same time, and instead fell into the ocean of greater stupid.
AGWtards in a nutshell
>>7973222
>If all of these climate models have failed in their predictions
that's a big IF there, friendo :^)
>Fuck even questioning it will get you attacked as can be seen ITT
>You don't even have to debunk the myth the simple act of asking questions is fast reaching taboo status
Climate deniers get the same treatment as flat-earthers and anti-vaxxers for the same reasons. It's not that they're disagreeing with us, but rather that they're being retarded and demanding that everyone else be retarded too, despite the fact that their brand of retardation brings verifiable harm to humanity.
>>7973230
>http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html
> Department of Computer Science - University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
> creationist textbooks
Are you having a stroke right now ?
>>7973229
It's that they don't want to give even more money to really rich guys so they can fix a problem that never existed in the first place
>>7973232
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/index.html
>>7973224
okay, I read through that link, and it's basically the ramblings of a COMPUTER SCIENTIST whose argument hinges on a profound misunderstanding of geochemistry.
also, your picture references this report, but the claims in the picture aren't actually anywhere in there:
>http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/0862/report.pdf
in other words, you're lying, and not even trying to make it plausible. who's embarrassing himself now?
>>7973240
BTFO
TFO
FO
O
>>7973232
HAHAHA FAGGOT
>>7972782
The paper you posted is flawed.
>The Monckton paper takes the point about quantification above to the extreme. It focuses exclusively on the papers that quantified human-caused global warming, and takes these as a percentage of all 12,000 abstracts captured in the literature search, thus claiming the consensus is not 97%, but rather 0.3%. The logical flaws in this argument should be obvious, and thus should not have passed through the peer-review process.
>It's also worth noting that based on Monckton's logic, only 0.08% of abstracts reject human-caused global warming.
This page has some links to papers showing a consensus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change
![onIdBq3[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/32uZObl.jpg "onIdBq3[1].jpg")
>>7973240
> literally a word that says creation
> haha i proved its a creation book LOL xDD
> BTFO XDDDDDDDDDDD
Your 8th grader standards of """""evidence""""" keeps amazing me. Yet again, you're an AGWtard. You know Richard Dawkins website also has a creationism section right ?
https://richarddawkins.net/2015/06/how-creationism-was-created/
>>7973257
You call this trolling? You suck.
>>7973258
> is an AGWtard
> actually accuses people of trolling
the irony is strong
>>7973257
you'd have a point if it weren't for the fact that when you click on the "New Location" link, it takes you to a page that explicitly advocates Young-Earth Creationism.
of all the dumbshit stuff to lie about...you pick THIS?
>>7973278
> lel ur a creationist
> which justifies my inability to provide a signle piece of evidence
I'm not even religious in any sense or dabble with dumb shit like this. I'm simply amazed that all the AGWtard posts revolve around ad-hominems and backpedalling.
>>7973280
>ad-hominems
listen here, nimrod. I know it's been said a bunch in this thread alone, but someone saying mean things to you isn't necessarily ad-hom. in fact, if they call your arguments retarded, it's the opposite of ad-hom.
you've been given evidence. right here >>7973146 and your response was to stick your fingers in your ears and hum. it's not my problem if you reject evidence out-of-hand without any rationale or justification, and it's nobody's job to provide you with more evidence for you to ignore.
>>7973280
If, you're going to troll, atleast use a website that doesn't advocate creationism dumbass.
>>7973293
> You've been given evidence. right here >>7973146
> Radioactive decay is evidence.
I like how you avoided the point that it's not reliable and it shows different decay signature on different parts of the same subject you're testing.
Then again, after all your inane shitposting it would be pointless to ask evidence or a scientific input from you.
>>7973306
Your mom is 4 gigatons
>>7973198
>Literal billions of dollars from instituting a meme tax
Maybe you should stop and think for just one second. There is a massive trillion dollar industry that will fight tooth and nail to avoid regulations and to avoid ramping down production. You might have guessed that these are oil companies. Like tobacco, sugar and probably a whole bunch off other industries, they do not want regulations. They will spit in money in PR, "science", buy scientists and generally try to sway the public opinion.
This is a tried and tested method, I cannot even believe people can willfully ignore that multi-billion dollar companies will not outright muddy the debate to avoid regulations. How can you say with a straight face that one side is financially invested when the other is probably more by at least an order of magnitude? You have to be a fool or in the pockets of oil companies to ignore this.
But hey, that doesn't fit you retarded argument.
>>7973300
>I like how you avoided the point that it's not reliable and it shows different decay signature on different parts of the same subject you're testing.
If you actually read >>7973244 you may notice that I actually addressed the claim by pointing out that it's a pretty obvious lie, and that the creationist comp sci professor you've been quoting doesn't understand even basic geochemistry.
but go ahead, keep ignoring the evidence so that you can continue to pretend nobody's shown you any.
"The colder it gets, the better I like it. I love that there is thick frost on the inside of my windows, and that the glass of water I left by my bed last night froze solid by morning. What I would really like is that I would wake with icicles hanging from my nose and ears.
I find the cold wholly inspirational. Every morning I tromp along the icy Thames and every afternoon I come back to my small room and try to write about it."
What brought us out of the magnificent Little Ice Age?
>>7972081
>scientific hoax
You, sir, are a total fuckwit. In order to avoid outing yourself as a total fuckwit again in future, i recommend the following:
1. Google "scientific method"
2. Think about the incompatibilities between this and "scientific hoax"
>>7972081
>one example of climate tomfoolery
>climate change is a hoax!
>>7974074
Even observant scientistic methodists are not immune to error.
>>7972427
>dude lmao we're just apes on a rock darwinism lmao
>humans don't rely on intricate ecosystems
>humans don't fish, so increasing acidity of oceans due to carbonic acid increase won't affect us
>humans don't farm, so plant migration due to changing climates won't affect us
>humans don't hunt so plant migration will never have a negative effect on us
Die
>>7974152
>You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide
Did he seriously say this? Is there a credible source other than crank articles?
>>7973388
Just because there is an industry that doesn't want to be collapsed by asinine regulations doesn't mean that AGW is not a sham
Try again
>>7974163
We should be colonizing the galaxy instead of wasting money on fighting the climate change boogeyman
>>7974177
>dude just go to another planet lmao
>>7974181
>maybe if I greentext enough then everyone will forget that I'm a massive retard
You've been exposed, time for you to go
>>7972498
>implying it wouldn't be easier and quicker to directly tax fossil fuel companies
>>7974184
>dude I'm not going to actually refute any of your points but you're definitely retarded because I say so lmao
>>7974168
But there is an industry with more money, a stronger motive that doesn't want the industry collapsed
Compare this to governments who divide potential voters with agw and have to fund research supporting agw, which costs big monies
>>7974192
You didn't make any points but you did troll p good
>>7972081
Welcome to /sci/, the place for informed, intelligent people to discuss why:
>gravity doesn't real
>time is an illusion
>self is a social construct
>free will can't be true
>QM is somehow completely wrong
But: because multiverse: somewhere,somehow, there's a me that isn't a loser.
>>7974206
There's also some retard who is shitposting with greentext
>>7974188
And those taxes would get passed right along to the consumer. Want to see what soaring energy costs do to people? You really don't cause it ain't pretty. The only viable alternative to fossil fuels is nuclear but guess what happened with that industry, a bunch of people came together and created a boogeyman there as well, a boogeyman that preys on boomers' instant connection between the word "nuclear" and "missiles raining down from Moscow"
Now the AGW boogeyman is in place and instead of Soviet missiles being connected to fossil fuels it's pictures of dying animals with the message "you did this by driving your car and turning on your air conditioner!!" pumped into kids heads literally from kindergarten
Anything shrouded in dogma, as AGW is, is bunk
If something cannot take the pressure, if it cannot stand up to rigorous academic inquest, then you are in the presence of crap
>>7974215
But the gubmints could just say don't raise energy prices. This is a conspiracy with the majority of 1st 3orld countries accepting AGW and all keeping the secret that it's a lie, but it's impossible they could tell oil companies what to do directly, apparently
AGW does stand up to rigorous academic inquest tho
>>7974206
> believes in free willy
into the trash you and your spirituality goes.
