Explain why you disagree with 97% of the scientific community and yet believe you aren't a moron

Explain why you disagree with 97% of the scientific community and yet believe you aren't a moron.

Other urls found in this thread:

cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/strandwg/CCSM3_AR4_Experiments.html
lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/sorce/sorce_tsi/index.html
lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tcte/tcte_tsi/index.html
lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/historical_tsi.html
ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/greenhouse-gases.php?section=watervapor
wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/40/404797_climate-assortment-of-statements-from-east-anglia-.html
cesm.ucar.edu/working_groups/Change/CCSM3_IPCC_AR4/
iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=F2F50AEAE56919D11FC5D6B81D412816.c1.iopscience.cld.iop.org
link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1022061622602
forestry.gov.uk/pdf/fcrn006.pdf/$FILE/fcrn006.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=L_861us8D9M
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

where's this overwhelming scientific evidence? is it on huffingtonpost?

t. Al gore

Anyone trying to sell you on global warming is trying to make money off you

The reality is the earth goes through climate change all the time, and nothing your leftist bullshitters can do will stop it

Even if the US stopped 100% of all bad emissions there's no way we're stopping china or everywhere from polluting

Stop pushing your retarded agenda faggot

Okey Dokey

Looking at CCSM 3.0 IPCC AR4 Simulations

cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/strandwg/CCSM3_AR4_Experiments.html

Solar forcing data used in the models does not match actual solar forcing data collected by the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics of the University of Colorado, found here:

lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/sorce/sorce_tsi/index.html
lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tcte/tcte_tsi/index.html
lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/historical_tsi.html

Why are inflated Irradiance numbers used in the models?

>97% of the scientific community agree
>97% of anything agreeing on a theory which is about as true as Scientology

M8 the polar ice caps would've melted in 2014 like Al Gore said in 1999, because they haven't, and because this global warming bullshit looked entirely fabricated and one big like from the start (credit going to your precious beloved Al Gore, of course), nobody with more than 1 brain cell believes in globalist warning.

I am NOT disagreeing I am saying it is a GOOD thing!
Why? Because we are in a an ICE AGE, we are in an inter-glacial pause... this will end an the world will once again have HUGE glaciers covering the planet.
Heat the planet up NOW because it is going to get VERY cold LATER!

I get what you are saying, Al Gore got it wrong. The counter argument to that is "well Al Gore isint a scientist even though he decided to try and interpret massive amounts of scientific data and distill it down in to a movie friendly package"

We need to debate the actual simulation and models, not al gore's talking points

>% of climate scientists
>think global warming is affected by
This assumes 100% of the climate scientists believe that "Climate change" is real, because they say it is either affected by humans or not.

slide thread, saged

Always found this funny because I ask to see the published papers that prove their belief (and thats what this poll is about, not evidence but their belief) and they never cough it up. Climate change is real, and it very well may be due to Human activity but it is NOT settled science and in fact there isn't a lot of evidence either way because so many of the studies are just 'inconclusive'. About the most commonly cited pieces of evidence are reddit tier graphs of temperature vs time showing it's hone up more recently but correlation doesn't mean causation and it has done that in the past too so there really is no known causal link, right now.

Now here is NOAA, saying that we dont know enough about the most abundant greenhouse gas in our atmosphere to understand its total effect on climate and climate change, notably the positive feedback loop

ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/greenhouse-gases.php?section=watervapor

"However, huge scientific uncertainty exists in defining the extent and importance of this feedback loop. As water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the Earth's surface and heat it up). The future monitoring of atmospheric processes involving water vapor will be critical to fully understand the feedbacks in the climate system leading to global climate change. As yet, though the basics of the hydrological cycle are fairly well understood, we have very little comprehension of the complexity of the feedback loops. Also, while we have good atmospheric measurements of other key greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, we have poor measurements of global water vapor, so it is not certain by how much atmospheric concentrations have risen in recent decades or centuries, though satellite measurements, combined with balloon data and some in-situ ground measurements indicate generally positive trends in global water vapor."

That "97% consensus" study is faked btw.

>1 post by this id
Remember that at one time scientists believed that the sun revolved around the earth

I'm sorry but are you calling those 3/100 scientists idiots? Did they not receive a degree and don't they likely have good reason to believe climate change isn't man made?

>muh consensus
not science and not true in the slightest.

>we wont stop cause everyone else probably wouldnd stop!!

absolute moran, ignorant, worthless scum.

china has ALREADY stopped.

it's JUST you now. literally.

I don't, now explain to me why I should fill my country with inbred sangniggers.

Also 97% of (((climate scientists))) is not the whole scientific communite

Lefties act as though climate change and man-made climate change are one and the same, and use data that suggests the former to "prove" the latter.

They do this knowingly, because they are cowardly liars with bad ideas.

dont say that, instead point out that science is not run by consensus. Anyone who advocates otherwise is not advocating for science.

Science cares about results and replication

Even peer review is shit within serious academic circles. The only thing that makes a study qualified is independent replication of the results by a neutral third party.

because they are all paid by people with ulterior motives.... fucking bill nye says gender is fluid.... fucking nigger tyson is jumping on this bandwagon also.... its about control. is the climate changing, yea.... is it because of us evil humans.... thats what they want you to think...

my mom is diabetic.... has no thyroid.... goes to doctor wanting off metformin.... doctor gives her some new epipen type injection pen... read booklet.... says dont use if you have had thyroid cancer or dont have a thyroid.... why did the doctor give it to her.... she is paid too..... but she is the doctor right... so she is right.... we should just take someones word because of a title right..... stick your head back in the sand and hope it will all be ok

>moran
>china has already stopped

Not sure if you're fishing for (((you)))'s or just pants on head retarded but there's no way you're every going to stop China from emitting, or anywhere else for that matter

Read a bit dipshit, maybe then you'd know we're already past the threshold of carbon emissions in the atmosphere, stopping emissions now would serve no purpose

THE TWO MOST IMPORTANT POSTS ON CLIMATE CHANGE IN THIS THREAD:

IPCC inflating Solar Irradiance Data
NOAA admits it doesnt understand positive feedback loop of the most abundant greenhouse gas in existence.
If we dont fully understand the GHG problems and we are using FAKE numbers to run the models, then how truthful are these models? How accurate can you expect them to be when you are putting garbage data in?

Ever heard the programmers mantra of "Garbage in, garbage out"?

Argumentum ad populum fallacy. Kill yourself cuck.

No shit...

These people get hired by politicians to make those studies. I bet those three per cent who dared challenge the narative lost their paycheck and risked their careers if not destroyed.

Now, here are some of the emails from the East Anglia university that started all this:

wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/40/404797_climate-assortment-of-statements-from-east-anglia-.html

""I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding
in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981
onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

""I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin
and I will keep them out somehow a** even if we have to redefine what the
peer-review literature is!""

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment
and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate"

""Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will
do likewise.""

>Scientists can't reliably tell you the weather in 2 weeks
>They can somehow predict the weather in 2050

The dedicated model using Year 2000 values actually did very well in the AR4 simulations. Very mild warming all the way out to 2100. And I mean very mild, like just over .2 degrees C

This is just such a hard argument to accept. It's basically argument by making people feel uncool.
>LMAO ONLY 3/100 SCIENTISTS BELIEVE THE EARTH REVOLVES AROUND THE SUN

You aren't the type to ask "well maybe the sample wasn't neutral" or "it's possible that this party line is entrenched".

>like just over .2 degrees C
But I thought it was 2°C and the apocalypse

I wounder how pic related would answer your question

simple even without going into science:

> 97% of christians agree god exits
> 97% of muslims agree homosexuality is bad
> 97% of top upvoted responses in reddit are ture

If you have an already biased sample and then ask them a very vague question what is the result you think you are going to get?

> 97% of scientists already working on global warming agree that climate change is real

well that's just bad science, isnt it?

Notice that was only one model from the AR4 simulations.

Here is the link to the AR4 Simulations:
cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/strandwg/CCSM3_AR4_Experiments.html

You can find more information about each model here:
cesm.ucar.edu/working_groups/Change/CCSM3_IPCC_AR4/

Notice how they only graph like 5 out of the 14 models? I wonder, what those models showed that wasnt worth graphing? I wonder why the data for Solar Forcing is inflated beyond levels ever observed or found during historical reconstruction?

Please dont misunderstand me, Im not advocating as a "pro-climate change" guy. I was simply pointing out that there was a model in the AR4 simulations that performed very well. The fact that the IPCC decided to ignore it and only discuss the ones that showed "catastrophic" warming should provide some insight to their bias

this
schopenhauer wrote an essay were he said that basically, once 20% of any given group is convinced of something, the rest will just follow because this ever-growing part of them who believes in something is threatening to leave them alone. It's a circle that feed of itself.

So this applies here, many proofs anad evidences show that human are far from being the biggest threath when it comes to global warming, but why follow this tiny domain when you can just say "yep, humans do it. Look, we're so much to say this we must be right"

Great whats the actual solution that doesn't involve me paying 100k+ for solar panels and an electric car and being taxed for pretty much for having the gall to be born in a developed country.

>But I thought it was 2°C and the apocalypse
Only if you live on an overdeveloped beach condo in Florida or the carolinas.

Amusingly it is not big oil that is fighting climate change policy. Real estate developers and land owners are actually the biggest lobby group. They are followed by the oil refineries (koch brothers, etc) as refining pollutes more than drilling or piping.

The 97% number has been debunked several times.

>Explain why you disagree with 97% of the scientific community and yet believe you aren't a moron.

Explain attached picture while keeping in mind neanderthals didn't have fucking cars or oil refineries.

OP why don't you read the abstract of the paper that 97% number is based off of.

iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=F2F50AEAE56919D11FC5D6B81D412816.c1.iopscience.cld.iop.org

>We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

In short, 97% of 32.6%. It seems that the jury is out on that one. And the sample size wasn't even comprehensive either (

"tis a foolish man who builds his house upon the sand"

i don't care about global warming, i don't live on a coast

When the ice melted Cro Magnon man marched and we were born.

i think most of us here accept golbal warming but the splutions are not more taxes and lectures from linshits

we need to
>reduce the population of the third world, china and india/pakistan
>plant trees everywhere
>make advancements in nuclear fusion and build more power plants

the solutions scare the shit out of leftists so theyd rather braid eachothers pussy hair in the wilderness

>solutions* libshits*

>Great whats the actual solution
Death, thats the only solution. Massive population control, etc.

There are studies that discuss how 11,500 years ago, we were destroying the environment by replacing native foliage with agricultural products. The increased erosion and sedimentation contributed to a massive change in the geology surrounding the Dead Sea.

If we cant farm, hundreds of millions will die

97% of 33.6%, sry.

Science is not determind by consensus, its determined by fact. It's not a fucking democracy

>plant trees everywhere
except they tried this and it fucked shit up
1000's of acres of forest are being removed in Scotland to allow the ecosystem to return to peat as peat was capturing more carbon than the trees could

its the same reason the US is tearing down hundreds of hydroelectric dams and restoring the ecosystem. The dam was actually hurting more than it was helping

but should we let those death happen naturally or have the governments take it upon themselves to do it so we can preserve the advancment of our species?

>if you choose the former, you're a cuck

>disagree with the scientific community

Oh, wait, the same guys who did routine lobotomies and electroshock for garden-variety depression. That scientific community?

i cant speak for the states but forest land in europe has been destroyed for nearly 500 years. form boat building to early industry, we've wiped out our trees

we need em back, pham

governments exist to preserve goverments, not the people they serve

>surveys have found

Oh, how that sure is meaningful.

HURR DURR
enviro-niggers wrong again

link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1022061622602

Every time you fucks have a great idea about how to save the environment, you end up fucking it up more

and another one

forestry.gov.uk/pdf/fcrn006.pdf/$FILE/fcrn006.pdf

Holy shit hahaha

>"tis a foolish man who builds his house upon the sand"
The problem is the houses built in the sand and surf are among the most valuable on earth as far as cost per square foot.

Look how many of these cities are oceanfront. Monaco is especially fucked as the entire country exists at sea level. Monaco and Hong Kong are the two most endangered of the major cities when it comes to sea level rise and they both happen to have the highest land values on earth.

If you follow the money on climate change denial and especially sea levels you will see which group has literally trillions of dollars to lose. They don't want the coastal development bubble to burst. Rich people live at the beach and they want to keep it that way,

Majority of people whos grant money and funding comes from studying global warming claim global warming is real

WOW

i know and I never challenged your assertion.

Whats funny is this belief that its a new practice for speculative investors to use the government or public perception to protect their investments.

I'm going to leave this here. This is a cesspool of fuckwits.

It could be argued that the importance of greenhouse gasses on warming is overstated. However, it's impossible to deny that the increase in CO2 emmisions has lead to an increase in ocean acidity. This has a number of devastating effects on marine life.

Climate change is obviously fucking real all these idiots saying it's not must be living under a rock. A piece of Antarctica the size of Texas just melted, increasingly violent and unpredictable storms, unusually high and low temps. I can't believe some people think it's fake or that they are better qualified than the entire scientific community. 97% of everyone knows ops a fag.

>muh fallacies

reeeeeee

"Over the past 300 million years, ocean pH has been slightly basic, averaging about 8.2. Today, it is around 8.1, a drop of 0.1 pH units, representing a 25-percent increase in acidity over the past two centuries. The oceans currently absorb about a third of human-created CO2 emissions, roughly 22 million tons a day."

>ph of 8.1
>acidic
sure thing bucko

>Climate change is obviously fucking real all these idiots saying it's not must be living under a rock
>Climate change
>change
youtube.com/watch?v=L_861us8D9M

Questions for OP:

>What exactly are the scientists saying?
>How bad do the scientists say it is?
>We are a tropical species. A warmer world is a wetter world.

I guarantee you, no credible scientists are saying that our children will get boiled alive in the next 50 years.

It's an issue of false equivalency.

Because if the 97% doesn't find any evidence they don't get shekels.

> 97% of scientists paid to research global warming believe in global warming

Well fuck! It must be that I hate science!

Post a grade school level video from 1977 as proof...

>Whats funny is this belief that its a new practice for speculative investors to use the government or public perception to protect their investments.
It already happened in North Carolina.

>Not realising it's a logarithmic scale
>Not realising marine life is sensitive to small changes in conditions.

I know.....here is the thing though

its going to be easier to prove the science wrong than it is to get people to understand and believe that this is a hoax perpetrated by real-estate tycoons and investors to protect their beach front property from non-anthropological climate change.

Proving the science wrong should be easy enough. Proving a conspiracy true is difficult, no matter what evidence you have

I guess you and I just differ on the approach but are still reaching a generally similar conclusion, ie, it is not happening at the rate they say it is and it is not explicitly the result of human activity.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments

Because most people simply go with the group to avoid ideological contradictions.

exactly this

...

Not realizing that we had no idea what the ph of the oceans was 300, 200, 100 million; 100, 10, 1 thousand, or 900, 600, 400, 200 years ago

if they could tax air they would. and thats exactly the idea behind carbon tax.

also 100% of the scientific community have yet to replicate teslas work, or explain how the mayans and others could predict eclipses millenia ago with techniques we learned in the 60s.

peer review science is a cult, start experimenting like it should be. inb4 but we can't get funding if they don't agree.

Are you thick on purpose?

There are ways to model past conditions.
You also haven't answered to the increase in acidity.

Says who? Mother fuckers can't even predict the weather 3 weeks from now, but you believe what they say 200+ years from now?

The pH of sea water can be measured although there are complications due the presence of dissolved salts and other factors. On average, surface sea water is mildly basic, about pH of 8.1, although the measured pH can vary by as much as 0.3 pH units at different times in the same area and from area to area. There is a mathematical relationship between pressures of CO2 (pCO2) and the resulting pH of pure water. This relationship is the basis for the calculation of ocean pH values. Caldeira employed such a formula to conclude that the pH of the oceans had changed by about 0.15 of a unit since 1750. He assumed, without providing any empirical evidence, that the pre-industrial pH was 8.25. This work has been challenged because it is not consistent with observation. The ocean is a very complicated system and does not yield to simple modeling.

I don't understand, what is the coastal developers stake on all this?

Yes but CO2 is being absorbed into the ocean. That simple and can't really be argued against. It doesn't matter how one chooses to model it. This will have a long term effect. I don't see how you could disagree with that?

Are those the same 97% who said Africans were black and Theory of Evolution is a fact? Then no, you're a fucking moron

DAILY REMINDER

* A doubling of preindustrial CO2, absent any feedbacks, would result in a maximum forcing of +1.2C.

* The General Circulation Models, and the IPCC, predict 2-8C of warming because AGW theory assumes a positive H2O feedback. They assume that if CO2 causes a little warming, the atmosphere will hold more water vapor and that more water vapor will lead to a lot of warming.

* The warming predictions cover such a large range because everyone assumes a different average H2O feedback rate.

* Every GCM based on this assumption has failed to model temperatures for the past 17 years. They are all trending too high.

* In the late 1990's the modelers themselves stated that if they missed their predictions for more then a decade that would falsify AGW theory.

* There is no data to suggest a +H2O feedback either now or in Earth's past.

* If there is no +H2O feedback then we literally have nothing to worry about.

* The average climate change believer knows none of this. Politicians, citizens, activists, surprisingly even a lot of scientists are literally ignorant of the theory and the math. In their mind it's simply "CO2 = bad" and "experts say we're warming faster then ever."

Explain how taxing my gas, car, making it more expensive to buy, making it less powerful, reducing the speed at which I can drive, making me pay to have the right to drive in Paris, and can only drive one day out of two, otherwise I have to buy another car to drive on the other day (and pay the tax twice), and have some more shit to pay to be able to drive when there is more pollution ; is actually going to change anything to a natural cycle of the earth that has happened several times before? Oh wait, it's just a way for the government to tax the shit out of me, while virtue signanling as "protectors of the environment". Really made me think.

You motherfucker.

because we only have temperature data for the past couple hundred years.

How can we make a judgment on how the weather is changing when we only have data for 200/4,500,000,000 years? We can't make an accurate judgement on that alone. We don't know what kind of weather patterns our planet goes through.

It's the same as if you watched the first 2 seconds of a movie and said "Oh, well based on that, we know what will happen at the end of the movie."

So, earlier I said that PH dropped .1 to 8.1 from 8.2.

You retorted with "but ocean life is very sensitive to ph"

Then I showed you proof that ocean ph can vary by as much as .3 ph depending on the time and location it was taken.

Now, tell me how if there is a natural variation of .3 ph within the ocean, why a .1 drop is catastrophic. it seems well within the natural bounds and variation observed in the ocean.

Also, you ignore the fact that we have had marine life on this planet for hundreds of millions of years and they flourished in an ocean that contained much more co2 than it has now.

We don't deny global warming you mong, we deny that it's man-made.

The CO2 will be distributed across the oceans and will give a global reduction in pH. You're suggesting that because local areas may have a large change that somehow makes it irrelevant. This isn't true.

they have to pitch anthropological climate change and act like we can fix it because the non-anthropological climate change that is naturally occurring and we are powerless to stop is going to destroy their investments

It really is mans last and most futile attempt to master the environmental domain. Only the ego of a maniac would lead them to believe they have to power to override the natural geological processes of an entire planet

ok, lets re-tool this discussion.

At what ph will we kill-off the life in the ocean?
What is the ph level at which everything dies?

That percentage of 100? That's from something like 40 scientists that AGREED TO ANSWER. The poll was sent out to like 2,000 scientists, a hundred or so filled out the poll, and 40 answered, with like 28 saying global warming was real, 8 saying no, the rest saying "no answer"
KYS

You know that we don't have an answer to that. However, you can't deny that there have been anthropogenic changes to the marine environment from CO2.

ok so you are saying they support anthropological climate change because they hope it might make a difference? I don't understand why they would support if they think it doesn't matter anyway.

In either case I dont see how this relates to
because in this case they are fighting against recognizing the rise in the sea levels. So are what are they fighting for exactly?

oh, you dont know?

But you said that this .1 percent drop is catastrophic due to ph sensitivity in marine life

but you dont know, you just think you do

stop ego wanking and post data if you have a valid point to make.

>tfw no repiles
cannot refute.

>consensus of evidence
>CONSENSUS
>FACTS (lel)
When Drumpf cut your save the planet (c) founding but it's alright because you don't believe in facts.

0.1 percent drop? I think you mean 30% increase in acidity.

There has already been a measurable effect on coral reefs from acidification

my point is that natural variation of ocean ph debunks your argument of extreme ph sensitivity.

You also fail to provide any evidence that ocean life cannot tolerate changes in ph as historical evidence shows that the oceans were teeming with life when CO2 levels were much higher than they are today


The burden of proof is on you sir

>.1 percent
I spoke incorrectly in that statement. .1 ph drop was the intended wording. I will concede that I misspoke in that instance

>arguing semantics when you know what i meant
this means im winning the factual argument

OP you often don't comprehend what you read do you?
It says climate scientists not all scientists. The science of getting grant money millions to have an unpaid undergrad watch a thermometer is climate science. They're even allowed to throw out data that interferes with getting more grant money.
>Real scientists care about preserving the integrity of accurate research. So when NOAA conveniently forgot to include a 15 year pause in “global warming” in their recent data, hundreds of experts took issue with it. Because they respect science. As real scientists do.
>The IPCC admits that while computer models forecast a decline in Antarctic sea ice, it has actually grown to a new record high. Again, the IPCC cannot say why.


#NotAllScientists