>american "intellectuals"
American "intellectuals"
Nicholas Collins
Other urls found in this thread:
twitter.com
twitter.com
twitter.com
youtube.com
lmgtfy.com
amazon.com
theexcellentpowder.org
sciencedaily.com
amazon.com
amazon.com
city-journal.org
ipcc.ch
judithcurry.com
quadrant.org.au
cato.org
cei.org
judithcurry.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Asher Bell
this has to be fake, nobody can be that stupid
Robert Roberts
The concept of nickels were created for me to not be able to find any, evidently
Thomas Bennett
it's fake you retard
Ryder Allen
It isn't.
Ayden Clark
Nope, he's that much of a fucking idiot.
twitter.com
Bonus: there are low temperatures right now so that invalidates climate science about long term trends.
twitter.com
Alexander Myers
Hello Sup Forums
Thomas Collins
>verified account
Jose Baker
he is right though, global warming is complete horseshit and spread by brainwashed marxists.
Brayden Collins
HE DIDN'T SAY THAT!
Samuel Hill
it's not, he's written plenty of nonsense on his twitter
twitter.com
Hunter Cox
he is right though, global warming is complete horseshit and spread by brainwashed marxists.
Jason Rogers
Global warming is a result of activity of the sun, as Mars and Venus are heating up in the same manner.
Throughout history climate has always varied, same is happening now. Trump is basically right.
Dominic Scott
this.
anyone above the age of 20 should recognize the pattern by now, we have these eco-dramas every couple of years and nothing ever comes of them.
ironically, one of the eco-dramas of the past was global cooling
Ethan Moore
Adam Kelly
climate change denial is as fedora as it gets desu
Hunter Wright
fedoras are obsessed with global warming though, as are all leftists.
Colton Gutierrez
climate change skepticism is ok, but using boogeyman is a sure way to tell people you are a retard or appealing to retards
Xavier Morris
He is right, though.
Easton Scott
>Global warming is a result of activity of the sun,
No shit, the problem is that human activities and carbon emissions intensify how hot it gets.
Ryder Hernandez
Americans haven't fallen for the man-made global warming hoax, as have Europeans.
Asher Long
>ironically, one of the eco-dramas of the past was global cooling
This, I remember this well from when I was young. During the 70s and 80s the media craze was "the coming ice-age", and because we had some really cold winters during that era, media and the usual suspects were freaking out over it.
Benjamin Rogers
Climate change skepticism is ok IF you do it at a scientific level. However, these skeptics never challenge the scientists making these claims (that would be hard and require intelligence and knowledge). What they do instead is launch a barrage of fallacious appeals to simplicity and emotion and see what sticks. It's paper-thin propaganda and anti-authority cretins lap it up just because it goes against the generally accepted narrative.
Hunter Brooks
m8 CO2 levels have been 10 times the values of today in the past, and no ecological disasters resulted from it.
You do realize how much gasses are ejected in the atmosphere from even 1 volcanic eruption right>?
Caleb Richardson
out of all the countries in the world, only america takes it. they will fall far behind in it, and when they realise their fault they wont be able to play a big role in it anymore. cant wait for the time when amerifat mobs marginalize, persecute and dismiss all the NASAs scientists and college professors in charge of it like a witch-hunt in the middle ages
Joshua Hughes
The earth also used to be a ball of molten rock. Just because the earth has experienced many physical states doesn't mean that having those states now would be a good idea.
Xavier Rogers
That was sensationalization by the press, mainly. Not actual scientific literature/findings.
Ayden Morris
But why would China make up a hoax where they're the biggest culprit on earth?
Connor White
This really shouldn't be a left vs right thing.
This whole left vs right thing is just a politics 101 for retards, who can't make up their own minds, because they're too lazy or too stupid to inform themself properly.
Cameron Evans
It's turned into a trust in authority vs. distrust in authority argument, which approximately correlates with the newest incarnation of ""left"" vs. ""right"" paradigm.
Joshua Collins
The power of convenience. So will they try to deflect it on someone else once the shit hits the fan?
>B-b-but he was really just a libertarian!
Juan Cox
IDK, this new politics is confusing and unpredictable.
Jack Ross
There’s always an apocalypse requiring the expansion of state power. The visions of global famine were followed by more failed predictions, such as an “age of scarcity” due to vanishing supplies of energy and natural resources and epidemics of cancer and infertility caused by synthetic chemicals.
In a 1976 book, The Genesis Strategy, the climatologist Stephen Schneider advocated a new fourth branch of the federal government (with experts like himself serving 20-year terms) to deal with the imminent crisis of global cooling. He later switched to become a leader in the global-warming debate.
Environmental science has become so politicized that its myths endure even after they’ve been disproved. Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring set off decades of chemophobia with its scary anecdotes and bad science, like her baseless claim that DDT was causing cancer in humans and her vision of a mass avian die-off (the bird population was actually increasing as she wrote). Yet Silent Spring is taught in high school and college courses as a model of science writing, with no mention of the increased death tolls from malaria in countries that restricted DDT, or of other problems—like the spread of dengue and the Zika virus—exacerbated by needless fears of insecticides.
Similarly, the Left’s zeal to find new reasons to regulate has led to pseudoscientific scaremongering about “Frankenfoods,” transfats, BPA in plastic, mobile phones, electronic cigarettes, power lines, fracking, and nuclear energy.
David Young
The health establishment spent decades advocating a low-salt diet for everyone (and pressuring the food industry to reduce salt) without any proof that it prolonged lives. When researchers finally got around to doing small clinical trials, they found that the low-salt diet did not prolong lives. If anything, it was associated with higher mortality. The worst debacle in health science involved dietary fat, which became an official public enemy in the 1970s, thanks to a few self-promoting scientists and politically savvy activists who allied with Democrats in Congress led by George McGovern and Henry Waxman. The supposed link between high-fat diets and heart disease was based on cherry-picked epidemiology, but the federal government endorsed it by publishing formal “dietary goals for the United States” and creating the now-infamous food pyramid that encouraged Americans to replace fat in their diets with carbohydrates. The public-health establishment devoted its efforts and funding to demonstrating the benefits of low-fat diets. But the low-fat diet repeatedly flunked clinical trials, and the government’s encouragement of carbohydrates probably contributed to rising rates of obesity and diabetes, as journalists Gary Taubes and Nina Teicholz have chronicled in their books. (See “The Washington Diet,” Spring 2011.)
The dietary-fat debate is a case study in scientific groupthink—and in the Left’s techniques for enforcing political orthodoxy. From the start, prominent nutrition researchers disputed fat’s link to heart disease and criticized Washington for running a dietary experiment on the entire population.
Cooper Parker
But they were dismissed as outliers who’d been corrupted by corporate money. At one hearing, Senator McGovern rebutted the skeptics by citing a survey showing that low-fat diet recommendations were endorsed by 92 percent of “the world’s leading doctors.” Federal bureaucrats and activists smeared skeptics by leaking information to the press about their consulting work with the food industry. One skeptic, Robert Olson of Washington University, protested that during his career, he had received $250,000 from the food industry versus more than $10 million from federal agencies, including ones promoting low-fat diets. If he could be bought, he said, it would be more accurate to call him “a tool of government.” As usual, though, the liberal press focused only on corporate money.
These same sneer-and-smear techniques predominate in the debate over climate change. President Obama promotes his green agenda by announcing that “the debate is settled,” and he denounces “climate deniers” by claiming that 97 percent of scientists believe that global warming is dangerous. His statements are false. While the greenhouse effect is undeniably real, and while most scientists agree that there has been a rise in global temperatures caused in some part by human emissions of carbon dioxide, no one knows how much more warming will occur this century or whether it will be dangerous. How could the science be settled when there have been dozens of computer models of how carbon dioxide affects the climate? And when most of the models overestimated how much warming should have occurred by now? These failed predictions, as well as recent research into the effects of water vapor on temperatures, have caused many scientists to lower their projections of future warming. Some “luke-warmists” suggest that future temperature increases will be relatively modest and prove to be a net benefit, at least in the short term.
Elijah Campbell
American intellectuals strike again.
Oliver Gutierrez
The notion that the establishment is "left" is just a notion spread by those alt right types, who consider everyone who disagrees with them a marxist.
Because the real radical left share a distrust in authority, they just don't really exist anymore in relevant numbers.
Austin Martin
Not an argument.
Hudson Lopez
Neither was the drivel you copy-pasted into this thread.
Wyatt Gray
Nobody's going to bother ripping your worthless fault-ridden pasta apart. Just from a glace I can see ten errors, for starters over-consumption of salt is so fucking bad for you yet american's gladly ingest heaps of the stuff, your government was trying to protect you but you're just too stupid to see that.
Gavin Evans
Except it is.
[citation needed]
Dominic Gomez
you can make these easily with inspect element, even editing it in fucking paint will probably work too
Zachary Peterson
It was exactly what I was describing above. No scientific refutation, no "J. Johnson et al. claim ____ but we disagree because _____", just a bunch of emotive tripe about the "Left" wanting to ban everything.
Robert Miller
"was created" is retarded, as it's clearly happening.
But his shitty logic has a silver lining: he's right that, if the USA (or other Western economies) tackle climate change by making ourselves less economically competitive, and China/India/other developing countries don't penalize themselves in equal measure, we're just going to fall behind the polluters.
Climate change legislation should only take place at a global level. Economics is a bottom-of-the-barrel mentality zone where the people who cut the most corners to provide the cheapest product gain largest market share, and that involves using dirty energy to fuel factories. That behavior needs to be accounted for.
Ayden Martinez
Chase Foster
theexcellentpowder.org
sciencedaily.com
city-journal.org
ipcc.ch
judithcurry.com
quadrant.org.au
Zachary Jones
Yet many climate researchers are passing off their political opinions as science, just as Obama does, and they’re even using that absurdly unscientific term “denier” as if they were priests guarding some eternal truth. Science advances by continually challenging and testing hypotheses, but the modern Left has become obsessed with silencing heretics.
In a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch last year, 20 climate scientists urged her to use federal racketeering laws to prosecute corporations and think tanks that have “deceived the American people about the risks of climate change.”
Similar assaults on free speech are endorsed in the Democratic Party’s 2016 platform, which calls for prosecution of companies that make “misleading” statements about “the scientific reality of climate change.”
A group of Democratic state attorneys general coordinated an assault on climate skeptics by subpoenaing records from fossil-fuel companies and free-market think tanks, supposedly as part of investigations to prosecute corporate fraud. Such prosecutions may go nowhere in court—they’re blatant violations of the First Amendment—but that’s not their purpose. By demanding a decade’s worth of e-mail and other records, the Democratic inquisitors and their scientist allies want to harass climate dissidents and intimidate their donors.
Just as in the debate over dietary fat, these dissidents get smeared in the press as corporate shills—but once again, the money flows almost entirely the other way.
Justin Perry
>ipcc.ch
>These models allow for policy-relevant calculations such as the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions compatible with a specified climate stabilization target.
You may want to have a read of these before you post them next time.
Levi White
>In summary, most CMIP3 and CMIP5 models overestimate the observed warming trend in the tropical troposphere during the satellite period 1979–2012
Landon Miller
You literally made that up.
> Detection and attribution studies based on CMIP3 models suggest that models tend to overestimate the observed warming of warm temperature extremes and underestimate the warming of cold extremes in the second half of 20th century (Christidis et al., 2011; Zwiers et al., 2011) as noted in SREX (Seneviratne et al., 2012).
Carson Clark
>global warning is complete horseshit
>implying the weather isnt changing
dude i went to london a year ago AND IT WAS SUNNY
even hot.
Angel Robinson
...
Tyler Sanchez
Both of those countries signed the paris agreement and their leaders have no stated intention to pull out
Makes you think
Joseph Johnson
The phrase didn't show up in a search for some reason. So you think an overestimation of the temperature trend of the tropical troposphere by about 0.05K is enough to discredit the notion of anthropogenic climate change?
Jackson Thomas
Have you ever actually seen any evidence for global warming other than a few news articles stating that "scientists" claim this and that?
Me neither.
Really makes you think.
Jaxon Kelly
then why would it suddenly be a chinese incitement.
Leo Fisher
We are not going to stop being economically competitive because of this horeshit. Trump is right.
Jaxon Hughes
Interesting, I attended a talk not long ago by an American climate scientist and the graph that he used (a total average of all the models) showed that the trend coincides quite well with observed data. Could it be that your sources are not being entirely honest in their representation of data? They have no peer review, after all.
Chase Nguyen
how about the fact the weather has been going crazy all over the world?
Julian Rodriguez
A) voting for a candy shop owner making a lot of sweet promises
B) voting for a doctor who says he will hurt you for your own good
america has had way more candy shop owners than doctors as presidents if you know what i mean.
its obvious america is steering towards short-term benefits, only makes sense they would choose to heat up the whole globe just for their own good.
William Jenkins
Not an argument.
en.wikipedia.org
Parker Long
US has been polluting the shit out of the planet at the expense of other countries that weren't industrialized enough for it.
Now that the other countries are catching up it still want to pollute a much or more
James Ortiz
Just checked his twitter feed to see if he posted anything kek worthy, wasn't disappointed.
Wyatt Taylor
>clap clap clap clap
Gabriel Reed
>the US is fucked
he really is a moron
Jace Walker
America may run away, but technically it will be behind the world
Lucas Cox
hello CTR
Grayson Murphy
Some graphs 4 u.
Mason Jenkins
>i post a study from a Professor and former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology who has published over 130 scientific peer reviewed papers
>replies to me with a meme gif
Ayden Sullivan
I am betting that he'll start a war somehow, his ego is infinite and he'll soon be craving a war hero image, just for the ratings LOL
Evan Sanders
>The final frames of the animation compare modeled and observed changes in global surface temperature (Mann et al. 2015), sea level rise (IPCC AR5), Arctic sea ice (Stroeve et al. 2012), and ocean heat content (Cheng et al. 2015).
There's a scientist in Japan who thinks ice crystals grow differently depending on the emotions of the people around them. Should we all start being extra nice to water?
Colton Jenkins
He did point out the faults with valid points in that gif though
Hudson Stewart
He didn't.
How is that relevant to Judith Curry?
Mason Perry
He did
Jeremiah Butler
I'm saying that
1) the graph you posted is obvious bullshit and
2) one (or a few) scientists holding a contrary opinion does not mean that the majority are wrong
Mason Scott
US leads the pollution per capita by far though.
Jaxon Martin
he did but i really doubt he honestly believe this.
reality is that he pretended to be retarded to win cause americans are retarded themselves
prove me wrong
Adam Morales
I expected better from liberals.
Aiden Lee
It's nice of you to try and educate us about climate science but why didn't you take screenshots of whole chapters, or at least enough to assure that none of us draw incorrect conclusions about that 850-page article?
For example box 9.2. where that blue text is from (1/2)
Hunter Ortiz
Why don't Americans believe in climate change?
William Nelson
(2/2) You should have included especially these graphs to show what you're talking about
William Brown
That only shows the average and without any reference to confidence intervals. At first glance, it looks like the climate models are completely wrong. But when you look at the individual models, you can see the observed temperature increases are still within the range of predictions.
In addition, surface temperature predictions, which are more immediately meaningful (e.g. for agriculture and glacial melting) have generally been far more accurate.
Aaron Brooks
I think this is also a relevant graph from page 824. The models were compared to historical data (if I understood correctly)
Jonathan Adams
Cry more. America is going to be great again.
Samuel Wilson
i was interested in your initial argument at first, but thats not an argument. try harder next time
Jaxon Bailey
think that might be australia actually
Samuel Adams
I'm not crying. I'm having serious discussions and they're not about the USA.
Carson Turner
An unsubstantiated refutation?
Dylan Davis
So you're just giving up your argument?
Henry Smith
>Palestinian liberals
Michael Clark
wtf I love trump now
Brandon Richardson
>americans unironically elected a generic neocon as president because he told them he was going to "drain the swamp"
Angel Gonzalez
But this is true
Chase Perry
what does that expression mean?
Jaxson James
It was more about the opposition (Hillary Clinton is an unelectable shitbag) and winning over the idiots in the rust belt.
It's a Trump phrase for ending corruption in Washington.
Justin Mitchell
This. Look at any long term global temperature graph and you'll see our current increase is exactly as it has been in cycles for millions of years.
Austin Ramirez
People who actually know what they're talking about seem to disagree.
Isaac Williams
I'm pretty sure that's wrong. I believe these rates of change are largely unprecedented in our current climate record.
Wyatt Sanders
Trump isn't an intellectual