(((Climate))) (((Change)))

>(((Climate))) (((Change)))

"If you can't falsify the records, move the goalposts!"

Other urls found in this thread:

realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2016/12/31/skeptical_climate_scientists_coming_in_from_the_cold.html
nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html?_r=0
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis#Conflict_with_established_medical_opinion
vox.com/2016/7/14/12016710/science-challeges-research-funding-peer-review-process#4
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Oy vey! It's anudda shoah. Be sure to fund our research, goyim.

>Tfw liberals and eurocucks still fall for the (((global))) (((warming))) meme

>2000
>"Climate is not changing!!!!!!!"

>2016
>"Climate is indeed changing, but it's not because of human action!!!!"

>Current year
>Denying climate change
Good goyim! Environmental regulations are bad

>That (((nose)))
Sup Forums was right again

This cartoon would look good to a religious political motivated individual with no real understanding of science.

realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2016/12/31/skeptical_climate_scientists_coming_in_from_the_cold.html

I thought that was the denialist's strategy?

The author has no scientific credentials and drop the names of many scientists. A lot of hot air, and not one word of actual data against climate change. A perusal of Dr. Curry's website shows her to be a proponent of climate change. My original comments on your lack of knowledge on science in general are further strengthened.

>haha let's make conservatives look retarded with our retarded ramblings about shit we intentionally construe
>HAHA YEAH LOL XDDD WHY WOULD ANYONE CALL US RETARDED HAHA WHERE WOULD YOU GET THAT FROM


Do us a favor, keep your retarded pseudoscientific boner, but pretend and tell people you're a LIBERAL, not a conservative, so they can make them look retarded and not us.

Do you know how hard it was to get Trump to win? You wanna make it even HARDER for us?


Kill yourself, fucking public education retard


t Meteorologist

Obligatory.

No one is saying that the climate is not changing.

The issue is the distribution of impact humans are directly causing, versus the Earth's natural cycles, as well as the climate changes caused by other species, both plant and animal.

Furthermore, the tangible effects have been mispredicted and overstated for years.

When will we finally see evidence that anything is going to happen within the next 80 years?

I don't have kids, don't plan to. Why should I give a fuck about what happens 200 years from now?

You know who I'm talking to.

I'm an atheist who works for the Canadian government who has conservative values and a degree in biology and I think it looks good.

What you should actually be complaining about is something like cherry picking, or complaining about journalistic sensationalism, or human nature to exaggerate scenarios that cause fear, but of course instead you try to believe that the people who agree with you on climate change couldn't possibly be incorrect in any sort of way, rather than considering the possibility that there would be someone who shares your opinion yet could somehow be misinformed or stupid.

Im not going to deny that evidence changes but that doesn't mean we ought to reject the use of evidence altogether.

Everyday we have to operate our lives with some level of certainty and that certainty comes from empirical evidence.
Until new evidence comes out that holes in the ozones are not altering the meteorological and climate conditions in such a way that would cause massive social and economic upheaval, then it's safer (for the current batch of research) to operate under the pretense that certain activities are contributing to Climate Change and that there are certain activities that we can take that would help.

To be fair, I also think that Solar is just the most economic option for a population the size of the US.

>scientists are making it up :DDDDD
>scientist lack real motivation, given they can go into generally any science field, given overlap

>not the oil companies, who have profit motive


Do you see some dude drilling in the arctic living in a mansion or something?

Also, all climate papers and thesis are peer reviewed, not just by scientists, anyone can read them. Learn the methods and models, publish your own paper and blow them the fuck out if you think you're so right

>n-nuuh onuhjdasDFBFSFSV

God, fucking flyover state retards

...

>peer reviewed by scientists wholly reliant on government grants for their career

>evidence changes
I have a very simple request for you.

I'd like you to understand that evidence doesn't "change".

I'd like you to understand that the evidence is either verified to be indicative of a truth, or misguided and attributed to a falsity.

Evidence does not change. Our interpretation of it does, or the evidence is fake.

>science is impartial. It's not like it can be bribe-
nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html?_r=0

Anyone who believes the climate Jew should be purged.

>Alberto barbosa retard without concise understanding of the different fields that fall under climate sciences, under the umbrella of environmental sciences
>ITS A CHINA CONSPIRACY
>I SWEAR
>BASIC ENTROPY IS BEYOND ME

Fucking portugal man, how they can afford internet is beyond me

>(((peer reviewed)))

Lol what do the Jews have to gain in this scenario you've made up in your head?

>realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2016/12/31/skeptical_climate_scientists_coming_in_from_the_cold.html
William Happer is
A) Not a climate scientist
B) On the record with a green-peace sting team as saying he would write anti-climate-change articles for cash (he throws in that he's doing it for the sake of skepticism but his studies are full of holes in terms of method and proper control groups and comparison groups).

To give you a sense of it, Climate Scientists want for nothing more than the climate to be getting better. They have other things they WANT to study but often study the effects of green house gases and the like out of paranoia about the status of the environment.

Most of the climate scientists I know can get funding more easily for things that are sexier and less beat-to-dead than climate change (most are a general mix of chemist and biologist or chemist and physicist). Climate change research is pretty low-cost so they're hardly doing it for the money and they most would rather work on some form of chemical engineering or ecosystem study in some exotic part of the world.

Minimalist Jew...me likey

Yes.
Nothing raises a scientist's status than either a huge new discovery or bringing someone else's down.
If Climate Change was easily disproved, you'd have more scientists attempting to do so, you'd have two sides like you do with politics.

You do not

>peer reviewed by scientists wholly reliant on government grants for their career
citation needed

That's the thing, without a source to bakc up your claim you're no different than a piss reeking homeless dude on the street jerking off and yelling about Aliens, I'm not sure what school you went to that taught you that your words have inherent value sans evidence

>Not realizing that Jews control big oil, big energy, and big manufacturing
>Not wanting to regulate the Jews

(((You)))

Peer reviewed is nice but it's somewhat meaningless when climate science, specifically global warming, is inherently unreproducable. That's why all policies are made from computer models and literally nothing more. Computer models mind you, that have almost always been wrong

>prove that (((climate scientists))) are the ones peer reviewing the studies

m8....

the weather changes everyday. of course the models for those with nearly a hundred years worth of tweaking models, still can't predict it accurately even a month away.

but for sure they know what the weather will be like a hundred years from now

And there's no quicker way to have your funding cut than to say you're challenging (((climate change))).

...

This.

No, prove that climate scientists are wholly reliant on the government for grants.

climate scientists get grants everywhere from their universities (public and private) to research institutes that often sell research to industry and companies.

Corporations themselves often do research for projection purposes.

>>Not realizing that Jews control big oil, big energy, and big manufacturing
What? Like the jews who control Exxon?

Aka none at all? Cause reality doesn't conform to your retarded fantasies?
>I don't understand academia

You have a very naive view of how the scientific community operates.

No major scientific journal will publish your paper if you go against the status quo. You don't get a medal. You lose your career.

Science™ has become just another propaganda arm of the government. The majority of studies that come from publicly funded institutions are non-reproducible. Let that sink in for a moment.

>No major scientific journal will publish your paper if you go against the status quo. You don't get a medal. You lose your career.
citation needed

None of those claims were made by actual scientists... just news reporters.

If you don't have solution to alleviate it once and for all, then you don't deserve to be taken seriously.

Even if all western countries start using alternative energy, there's a very low chance 2nd rate countries will follow suit.

Fag
This

>implying anyone outside of the government funds climate research
>implying anyone who ever came to the wrong conclusion would get another grant

>the retard likes the retarded post

Pottery

>implying scientists do it for money... because it's very lucrative to be a scientists

>implying scientists can be bought but politicians can't

the rothschilds are behind pushing global warming

dumbass

>muh oil companies

the Rothschild are 10 times richer than all the oil companies combined, and they fund global warming research & propaganda

rothschild fund global warming research

How do you think their research gets funded? They're wholly reliant on external funding (almost entire government funding) for their research.

And own most of the green energy industry.

Except that's not true at all.
There's no quicker way to get your funding cut than being wrong.

To give you a sense of it, the head of my physics department I used to work with got plenty of research dosh to look at subterranean temperatures around campus to possibly detect the effects of global cooling or warming over time.

His data has shown that the soil at least is most places is getting cooler in New England. A laymen's interpretation of this data might suggest he's coming out against Global Warming.

Yet his research dosh remains.

Fame is the biggest lure for most scientists and it's hard to get famous by constantly showing something that has been constantly shown by scientists before you.

It's why most scientists generally also subscribe to genetic differences among races. They don't take the "if they're less, kill them" stance that some Sup Forumsacks do but they acknowledge it all the same.

On a side note, let's say you're right that coming out against climate change gets your funding cut. Then you could get funding from alternative sources like the oil companies that are attacked by those who believe in climate change, no?

You realize how little money you're talking about here, right? It's not like scientists are millionaires here...

Who is more likely to be paid to lie.. the people earning almost no money and just doing their job with no extra benefits, or the people openly paid by lobbyist?

Rothschild > Oil money

>*Chimp noises*
Surprise, surprise. Niggertina doesn't understand science and just shouts, "muh Rothschild's" without posting proof.

Pathetic.

The motive of the scientists is their career, which they need the backing of their scientific community and funding sources to further.

How would the Rotschilds benefit from the global warming hoax?

>if you go against the status quo.

There is a historical evidence that different belief doesn't get accepted in the community.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis#Conflict_with_established_medical_opinion

I bet scientific community is still a hivemind like in 19th century.

they own all the green energy companies

Just facts. You harp and harp about oil companies, but the Rothschilds are richer and fund global warming.

ITT: Nerds shitposting because they know they're going to be fired in three weeks anyway.

I see.. so people are paying off every single climate scientist on the globe in some massive conspiracy.

Do you have any evidence of this? Climate scientists "losing their funding" because of climate change denial?

I suspect we'll be seeing more of you cunts on here after your funding dries up in three weeks. Better get used to real work, freeloaders.

So... you're assuming I'm a climate scientist?

Also, do you or do you not have any evidence of this conspiracy?

as much as you have evidence of the oil conspiracy

It's not a conspiracy, it's the side effect of an insular scientific community and reliance on government funding.

It's not a conspiracy that politicians are paid by lobbyists... lobbyists are even registered.

I see.. and what about the top researchers that are funded by their universities and not through the government. Why would they be lying?

it's not that, it's the trillionaire family Rothschild, they own all the green energy companies & fund climate research & propaganda

they also lobby governments to invest in climate research & their energy companies

see

I AM a scientist you dodo.
I do research regarding stochastic modeling of nuclear interactions. I actually interact with scientists and the Board that I have to go to to get funding.
Physics and Climate Change research are generally pretty inexpensive grants (I say generally because occasionally you get something like a nuclear reactor or CERN but those are ongoing joint ventures that many researchers from many institutions share).
Chemistry is generally the most expensive type of research to fund since it often requires many, many, many samples of expensive resources.

What the Board wants more than anything is to produce a famous or eye-grabbing study that lets them exploit it for personal gain.

I don't disagree that most studies in things like social-studies are non-reproducible but climate experiments and studies are some of the most consistently reproduced since most people are looking for signs of betterment or are keeping an eye on the progress of the change.

Again, private interests regularly fund research for their own conclusions. API funded research by Stanford scientists into global warming back in 68 and found that burning holes in the ozone back then was a serious concern.

The discussion over global cooling was over sulfate being ejected into the air (the same cause as acid rain) that reflected the sun's rays. Climate scientists back then didn't deny the existence of CO2 and global warming but didn't have the computational models to see which would have a greater effect.

>Climate "science"
>Cant predict shit
>Moves goal posts all the time
>Preaches the literal apocalypse
>Doesnt allow for other points of view
That isnt Science, that's a pseudo-religious ideology

Minimalist, nice. This is a good one.

Exxon Mobil revenue:
$259 Billion
Rothschild individuals' worth:
$3.5 Billion

The Rothschilds have more in assets but it's spread over so many families at this point that the actual by-name Rothschilds only hold about $4 Billion

Both sides are oversimplifying the scientific studies to suit their own agendas.

I agree science has become treated more and more as religion by laymen but the nature of stochastic modeling is that you revise it with time.
Besides, their predictions have been on the right track just not to the degree that Al Gore or Day After Tomorrow warned of.
And global warming's main issue isn't just a rising sea level but an alteration in the climates of various parts of the world that affect the social and economic situations there. It doesn't need to be a tornado or frozen ocean, just a sustained drought to starve out the US' bread basket or an increase in tornados in tornado country. Heat and humidity on the East and West coast that most buildings can't accommodate for. Snows that happen less frequently but more violently when they do happen that stress infrastructure.

Study meteorology man

So profound

Perhaps if you are an idiot, simple truths sound profound.

...

>can't read

>(((1 post by this ID)))

>being (((wrong)))
ftfy

>believing science is an objective truth
Scientists never agree on anything, and if climate change is such a huge problem, leave it to the scientists to fix it

>listing personally held assets only
>what's a trust?
>corporations have capital?

i hope that the climate meme is real so you faggot drown

>Besides, their predictions have been on the right track just not to the degree that Al Gore or Day After Tomorrow warned of.
of course not, your prediction cant be right if it completely overestimates how much the climate will change.

If you provide evidence against climate change that can't be refuted or explained in a different way, then you're not wrong.
The issue is that most explanations against climate change can be explained with some pretty simple meteorology or heat-dispersal.

Climate researchers who go against climate change only lose their funding if their research if they falsified data. If their research is legit but the conclusion they found can be explained with phenomenon like convection, with warm air pushing what cold air there is into certain spaces in a more condensed manner.

Since this cesspool of a hivemind called Sup Forums seems to be so sure of itself, tell me why 99% of climate scientists agree that its happening? They all got around a table led by some jews and said, "Yeah, these findings are bullshit, but push it anyways because... reasons." Every time people say its a conspiracy they never explain its purpose. Do tell.

A paper is more likely to be published by peer review if it confirms a hypothesis than if it denies it, regardless of the merits of the paper. Think about that for a second.

Like I said, it doesn't represent all their wealth and their actual total worth is pretty hard to ascertain since most of their ownings are private, not public. It's probably not $500 Trillion like some rumors have it, since the world's total wealth at the moment is around $250 Trillion. But it is probably higher than what I initially mentioned.

Right. Al Gore isn't a scientist and DAT is a fucking movie.
The real issue with Climate Change isn't the apocalypse type stuff that is predicted but more along the lines of substantial changes in every day things like harvests or infrastructure limits (A road that can take 4 inches of rain for days on end might lose some stability on its soil if it receives 8 inches of rain for one day)

I would say that the stuff the media peddles is meant to be alarmist stuff to oust people into action but the actual effects will manifest in political unrest in the country over things that we're just band-aiding right now, like the drought in California. Most farmers there keep digging for underground wells but, at the rate that the country consumes, they keep burning through those wells and have to dig deeper. Eventually they're gonna run out of a well long enough that the US food production rates plummet for a time.

Where did you hear this?
If the hypothesis is one the researcher came up with, then it's the opposite. The Researcher would WANT that hypothesis to be true and might be partial to evidence that supports it. Peer review would be looking for signs of that bias.

Peer review is designed (and usually executed in such a manner) that someone who is not invested in the outcome of your experiment or study at all can observe your methods and appraise whether the evidence was collected and analyzed impartially.

Why the hell would a different scientist give a shit if the results confirmed or denied a hypoethesis? If I publish my paper that says Radon radiation can be detected with a normal geiger counter and my evidence doesn't support that, why would another scientist reviewing my methods give a shit of whether my evidence was vindicated in the end? They're just looking at my methods, that's all peer review is.

There's a reason that climate denial 'scientists' never attack the methods in the experiments themselves and it's because they are impartial. The most they can quote are 'b-b-but muh global cooling' which is still partially true today.

They don't. It's way less than 99%. Stop eating propaganda.

Fucking savage dude.

This entire cesspool of an issue should be dropped from all public debate. Both sides have credible evidence, believe there is a massive conspiracy fabricating the opposition's evidence against them, and no one offers any policies related the issue outside of their existing greater political agendas.

It was all over the news last year.

Both sides do not have credible evidence.
The only reason this has become a partisan issue is because Liberals are bleedhearts for m-m-muh species and the GOP is sucking the Oil jew's dick.
Climate change is happening and it's almost certainly happening because of Ozone holes caused by greenhouse gases neutralizing the gasses in the atmosphere.
The actual product of that climate change is not what either side believes it is.
It's not the apocalypse like the Libs believe and it's not turning the temperature up in your room like the GOP believes. It's certain climate patterns becoming more extreme or altering altogether in such a way that our economy and infrastructure are not designed to deal with.

Not the MSM, can you send me some of the articles.
If it's true, I'd love to see it desu. I remember the big fiasco in academia was that ~80% of studies produced by Chinese clinical trials are complete fabrications.

The probly is really not the west itself, that can easily adapt to climate change. The problem is really africa, and if these 3rd worlders cannot adapt, you will see hundreds of millions rushing to western countries worse than any zombie move you have ever seen.

You appear to be a scientist. Bravo, engineer myself

I stand by my statement. Climate change is not an issue for the lawyers and politicians. The libs have valid evidence backing their side and the GOP have valid evidence backing their side. Being lawyers and politicians, they then took these slivers of evidence to the most extreme cases.

The only people I've seen working towards possible solutions are scientists and engineers working throught he private sector such as Musk

Money you fucking mong

This doesn't have the hypothesis thing, but shows how the peer review process has serious flaws. I think there was another problem where people had problems replicating a lot of studies also.

vox.com/2016/7/14/12016710/science-challeges-research-funding-peer-review-process#4

>this thing has a flaw so we should ignore all science