Am I a lunatic for not believing in anthropogenic global warming?

...

Other urls found in this thread:

imgur.com/a/HbKvL
ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=676
books.google.nl/books?id=O99s_1Jfo5oC&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=climbing alps medieval times global warming&source=bl&ots=dwYI-O4Qk-&sig=oBsWhNDPysIfekj3bzX574jtfz4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwibvZOE45rVAhWFbVAKHWs4DKsQ6AEIRjAE#v=onepage&q=climbing alps medieval times global warming&f=false
sciencenordic.com/vikings-grew-barley-greenland
english-wine.com/history.html
telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html
seaice.uni-bremen.de/sea-ice-concentration/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

No, Mars and Venus are heating up at the same rate.

imgur.com/a/HbKvL

climate has determined the fate of the biosphere since its formation, it might very well do the same for us.
That's why everyone should treat this subject with the utmost seriousness and not be frivolous or flippant about it.

Nah, but there is evidence to support it, the Seuss effect for one.

Brazil might suffer more than other countries though due to being poorer. Fisheries might take a hit too depending on how species distributions change.

For most countries it probably just means prices of food and taxes increasing due to frequent droughts.

No, you're just brainwashed by some very reasonable sounding people. Just ask yourself: who's more likely to trick me, nearly every climate scientist alive today, or a very small number of very, very rich people that would not profit off of cutting their plants' emissions?

>imgur.com/a/HbKvL

Well, it's pretty obvious that the canary in the coal mine (shallow water corals) point to a rapidly warming climate (coral bleaching). We are essentially removing carbon that's been removed from the natural carbon cycle (berried deep underground for eons) and burning it into the atmosphere. I'm no liberal faggot and don't think a carbon tax is the answer (natural process will cause market shift due to food scarcity and loss of land), but all signs point to OP being a massive faggot.

this image macro is just a dumb manual on how to rape and bastardize paleoclimatology.
In the real world, the paleoclimate record gives us some of the most compelling and obvious evidence for the importance of CO2 in driving the climate.

I like how it puts ocean temperatures on a scale of 10k years.
>lmao all of warning signs started taking effect in the 1950's

You are too resistent to propaganda and dare question things. That makes you a lunatic.

Just embrace it.
>who's more likely to trick me, nearly every climate scientist alive today [...]
You probably mean "every climate scientist working for governmental organizations such as the UN making models over and over again of some bogus hypothesis that always fails and pretends they're making science when in reality they're just bullshitting themselves and everyone else because were it not for governmental funding their climate specialization wouldn't afford them a high paying job as they have now".

It's like studying for almost a decade to be a catholic priest or sociology PhD that is about to get a comfy government job. You have invested so much years of your life on bullshit that you certainly going to change your mind in the last moment. Refer to quote attached.

If you really believe the "97% of scientists say so" meme you are atrociously misinformed.

>If you really believe the "97% of scientists say so" meme you are atrociously misinformed.
Wrong. ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=676

What a visceral reaction. Indoctrination really gets deep into your mind, huh?

If you really think that scientists are paid enough to cover up the truth you are atrociously misinformed.

How does that even disprove anything I said?

That is exactly my point, that when media talks about "all the scientists" they are cherrypicking and only considering the opinions of those working for the IPCC, which are precisely the ones making a living out of modelling that unproven and defective hypothesis.

Even more, when you look up what the question for that 97% is you find out that they claim way less than the media and the average internet tough guy [ aka: ] does. The question for that 97% was a very vague one used for the purpose of propaganda: "Do you believe CO2 has some effect on the global climate?". Of course they would say yes, since CO2 is a greenhouse gas and has many functions on our climate. The real, relevant, question, which hasn't been asked is whether they believe that CO2, in the amounts humans produce, could ever affect the climate on a planetary scale. The only thing we have are models made to support the assumption that CO2 is the major driving force of the changes that are happening to the climate in the recent centuries, and these models constantly fail.

The whole 97% thing is just a half-truth used to fool the average low information people that couldn't care less.

Oh yes, of course, nobody would ever hold these opinions of mine if they weren't terribly indoctrinated. I bow down to your superior critical thinking skills, master.

And pic related is a comparison of what the different models of the IPCC predicted would happen versus the temperatures that were actually measured.

>whether they believe that CO2, in the amounts humans produce, could ever affect the climate on a planetary scale
Obviously. The question answers itself.
Climatologists have been saying this for decades now.

Then why none of their models has been providing accurate results for decades? Why should we take their opinions on faith if they are unable to provide evidence?

>Dated a girl who's dad was head of biology department at a prestigious Uni
>He tells me to tie your research into CO2 emissions to get funding, no mattter how tenuous the link

Stop projecting your inability to think onto others.

>international panel on climate change

you might as well be pointing me to the flat earth society to give me objective information about how the earth is flat.

The 97% meme, comes from a meta study on other government funded studies where they looked at the conclusions drawn from papers.

IIRC there were actually less than 100 total papers that they looked at IN TOTAL, they were all government funded (meaning, they were funding support for a carbon tax), and they threw out the ones that took no opinion (ie a majority of them).
Of the remaining papers, 3% of them said that climate change was not caused by humans, and 97% said it is caused by humans.

97% is a meme
and the bluepilled normies will spout 98% 99% just for shits bc thats what happens when you take the blue pill

>Real temperatures significantly lower than even their most conservative estimates

YEP, no bias there at all. We should definitely trust these fuckers with $billions.

These losers wouldn't last a second in the free market.

the ability of CO2 to influence temperature not only pre-dates the existence of models, it pre-dates the existence of computers all together.

there are several independent lines of evidence that show that a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 concentrations would result in a warming of ~3°C.

The bullshit aspect of all research is that government funding is never considered a conflict of interest, but corporate investment is.

This is why you should be skeptical of all research.

>T. fag with authorship in Medical research

Use unedited photo

>several hundred expert authors from all around the world
>takes 3 years of writing
>two rounds of peer-review
>a thousand review comments on every chapter (and the authors have to justify their response to every single comment)
>everything is meticulously documented
>the list of scientific citations is longer than the actual articles
>none of the people get paid a penny to do this

people who think this is in any way comparable to the flat earth society are doing nothing but advertising their own ignorance

same thing different religion

it's so easy, isn't it?

being right was never hard

mother fucker
it is real, 6 gorillion scientists say so

can someone remind me of the downsides. Garbage human Niggers btfo

...

This map makes a strong case for a wall and continued global warming. Its like giving the earth a fever to purge an infection. Then we cool back down and repopulate.

>>none of the people get paid a penny to do this
>Germanon unironically thinks scientists are unbiased heroes that are purely altruistic.
The cognitive dissonance of the believers would be surprising, were it not obvious the CC narrative is just repackaged original sin.

so what are you implying now? That it's all made up?

>No clue who authored that map
>No insight whatsoever into methodology
>CC acolyte thinks this is a "strong case"

Off yourself first. Be a hero for mother Gaia.

Nobody really believes in it. Some just find it politically expedient or make money off of it.

>the ability of CO2 to influence temperature not only pre-dates the existence of models, it pre-dates the existence of computers all together.

If you are referring to Svante Arrhenius, even he was skeptical about his findings. He admitted that there were too many known unknowns and unknown unknowns to draw any solid conclusions.

>there are several independent lines of evidence that show that a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 concentrations would result in a warming of ~3°C.

computer modeling systems minus the computer. What is the difference?

SeeI worked in research. In so far as they're not financially interested, they have delusions of grandeur (look at the number of studies for the circumstances for winning a nobel prize).

Your claims about scientists are beyond laughable. You have the mind of a religious zealot.

I trust in Shekel-lord Ben Shapiro on this one. 97 is a meme, drill nigga drill!

Care to source them, please?
>so what are you implying now? That it's all made up?
The whole narrative is comprised of half truths propagandized under a cheap a scientific facade.

ok, let's assume for the sake of argument that what you say is correct and Svante Arrhenius had doubts about his own findings.
So what? What difference does this make to the fact that his conclusions have been strongly corroborated from then on.

You know, Isaac Newton thought his discovery of "action at a distance" was absolutely ridiculous and he tried to disprove it for the rest of his life.
Do you also advocate we go back to pre-Newtonian physics because Newton rejected his own findings?

Germans have no reason to doubt scientists, they discovered eugenics as well as countless experiments to unlock the secrets of the jews. Even had an old kid's show call "Phil Nye Hitler's Guy"

he's implying that you don't understand that science isn't a belief system, religion is

is that a "yes"?

You are a lunatic for not being invested in lowering the amount of pollution we produce.

The oceans are steadily filling up with garbage that will never go away. The atmosphere's makeup is changing and nobody has a long term strategy to deal with it. Furthermore a lot of American states are cutting funding or outright banning research into the long term effects of this pollution. This is everyone's problem.

Just calling a hypothesis "science" doesn't make it a fact. It means you don't understand science but can regurgitate "pop science". Science is a process, not an outcome.

AGW and pollution are two separate things. In fact, the AGW hypothesis has more than likely increased actual pollution as it robs time and money from actual pollution related causes and makes people think that throwing their cash at AGW is a global fix all. Real work on localized actual pollution then gets less attention and funding.

>ok, let's assume for the sake of argument that what you say is correct and Svante Arrhenius had doubts about his own findings.

he did, you should read his work. It's in black and white

>You know, Isaac Newton thought his discovery of "action at a distance" was absolutely ridiculous and he tried to disprove it for the rest of his life.
Do you also advocate we go back to pre-Newtonian physics because Newton rejected his own findings?

>laws of physics
>co2 causes warming

this is a logically fallacious comparison. warming can be cause by any number of things

what do you think the understanding about the radiative effects of CO2 molecules is based on?

Appropriate thumbnail switch.

you should take a look at the "Louisville Eccentric Observer" a Marxist nightmare newspaper from my proud state of Kentucky, they love to shill for global warming, are obsessed with being BLACKED by the MUSLIM NIGGER MUHAMMED ALI, a fraudulent draft dogding ANTI-AMERICAN NIGGER, because he lived and is buried here in Louisville and HE IS DA GREATEST, every writer for the LEO has a hateboner for whites, is a fat tumblr whale, hates our local established politicians, hates war, hates police, hates military, wants complete Marxist takeover, hates trump, every thing in it is about colored people, lgbt, women ect, every man is a cuck, every woman is an empowered gurl lol, every other page is about hip and trendy overpriced "local food joints", degenerate local music that is hipster trash by cucks women and minorities, "racist old white male art being taken down" and replaced by some local fat Mexican woman's depiction of her struggle floating here on a door from cuba, a local gay muslim makes baked goods to show people the true face of islam (LMAO) drag queen shows advertised nearly front and center, the prefix "cis" is used constantly (*shudders), basically everything possible that gets under your skin/makes your skin crawl, they're all for it, full degeneracy mode, full crumbling of society, gay hookup and massage parlor ad blocks in the back to top it off, right next to the SEX COLUMN by world renowned faggot DAN SAVAGE, a intellectual queer who explains sex to our children through the lense of what he calls our "cis patriarchal white male heteronormative narrow minded perspective" which doesn't include enough "KEKOLDRY AIDS BUTTSEX TOYS KINK AND BLACK MEN" literally GOOD GOY THE NEWSPAPER. I WANT OFF THE RIDE

>hot parts of the earth get hotter
>almost too hot to live already

Really stimulates the synapses

Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?

Post unedited photo

No. Wtf.
Climate. Change.
Read it carefully. Say it out loud. Maybe it will come to you.
Climate change.
Global warming, on a global scale. But locally, it's climate change. A change in climate.
Some will be wetter, some will be colder, warmer and so on.
Brazil will be hit hard, so will most of south America. There's a reason for the estimated couple of hundred millions climate refugees into the US from South. It's the reason Trump wants that wall.
Things are about to get real weird really fast.

Climate refugees

Hahahahahahaha

Kys

Lol, no. They may kill you. Hope you remember this then.

Why should you be? It is actually really funny to see historic records indicating that the medieval rime period was actually warmer than now.
>People traveled over the Alps in winter which is now unthinkable
books.google.nl/books?id=O99s_1Jfo5oC&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=climbing alps medieval times global warming&source=bl&ots=dwYI-O4Qk-&sig=oBsWhNDPysIfekj3bzX574jtfz4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwibvZOE45rVAhWFbVAKHWs4DKsQ6AEIRjAE#v=onepage&q=climbing alps medieval times global warming&f=false
>Colonists in Greenland were growing barley
sciencenordic.com/vikings-grew-barley-greenland
>And there were 139 vineyards in England and Wales according to the Domesday
english-wine.com/history.html

Fellow leaf this will be our problem too. It's already becoming uninhabitable in the middle East due to the temperature rise.

>climate refugees

is this how you white guilt yourself into accepting all the bearded 14 year old rapists?

>Lol, no. They may kill you.

Ya, thats the point of the wall.

None of that makes science a consensus based on majority-opinion.

the IPCC doesn't cite opinions as a source, only peer-reviewed scientific articles.

If you can't see the difference, then you can't see the difference.

Great. That doesn't make a consensus worth a damn in questions of science. Truth is not determine by majority. All the 'opinions' you claim aren't cited or referenced sure do tend to manifest themselves really quick with 'muh 99%'.

do you think the preponderance of evidence matters?

Jesus you're stupid ey?
Where did I say anything of the sort?
I'm simply stating the facts. We're nearing 8 billion people and 1 of those will be displaced.
How does one deal with that?
You're American, so you'll just ignore it. But you seem incapable of grasping the seriousness of the situation.

What the fuck do you do with a billion people? Kill them? Leave them there?
Do you think they'll sit quietly and let themselves be killed?
It's not about accepting them. It's about what the fuck do you do with them.
But you're incapable of such thoughts. Go suck a gun faggot.


That's what I fucking said. I swear you burgers are the worst.

Nice try. The IPCC is a joke.
telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html

Appealing to the majority belief, in any context, is fallacious. The Earth is not round because the majority of people and scientists believe in a positive opinion on behalf of the hypothesis, it is true because the evidence has merit and is valid in and of itself.

I'll ask again:
do you think the preponderance of evidence matters?

>97% is a meme

provide evidence to the contrary. It should be easy to do so. Where are the large percentage of climate scientists who disagree with the evidence?

I just answered you. It is irrelevant, the quantity of claims are not relevant to the quality.

no ones is talking about claims. I'm asking you about the preponderance of evidence that has been extensively documented in the peer-reviewed referee journal literature.
Do you think that matters or not?

>find climate change scientists that dont believe in climate change
wtf kind of circular reasoning is that?

I'll do it if you can find me the large percentage of jesuits that dont believe in jesus.

>I'm asking you about the preponderance of evidence that has been extensively documented in the peer-reviewed referee journal literature.
Are the claims valid and do they have merit? If not, appealing to 'how many' there are or how 'peer-reviewed' they are when, in reality, they cannot be replicated/subject to falsifiability is fallacious. Again, for the third time, the quantity is irrelevant. A majority behind a claim is redundant: if a belief were valid and truthful, it would take only one person to prove.

so how is anyone supposed to show that the claims are valid if you don't think the scientific literature is noteworthy? Where do you think the science takes place?

>jesuits that dont believe in jesus.

not understanding science. Cant provide evidence for your claims. Your opinion is null.

I. Hate. It. When faggots. Use. Too. Many. Periods. Because faggots. Believe. It. Emphasizes. Their faggot. Fucking. Message.

Pls. Delet. This. Post. Thnx.

>so how is anyone supposed to show that the claims are valid if you don't think the scientific literature is noteworthy? Where do you think the science takes place?
Excellent strawman, I've come across it many times. All it takes is a truthful validation of a hypothesis within a scientific journal, not the weight of the journal's authority or the majority who subscribe to its beliefs to validate the truth.

>It can be revealed that the IPCC report made use of 16 non-peer reviewed WWF reports.
the second chapter of the first working group (Physical science basis; Observations from atmosphere and surface) ALONE has a list of citations that spans 18 pages.

if you have a designed outcome, you arnt doing science you are doing a ritual.

That is no excuse. Professional scientists should know better. Even undergraduate students rarely commit such blunders. Yet here we are dealing with the IPCC, the best of climate science.

Nope, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Go fuck a dog

Woah, some good stuff here.

I find myself rather annoyed with that sort weaseling
I ask you if you think the evidence layed out in the scientific literature matters and you go on about how it doesn't matter how many people believe in a claim and how much of an authority these people are, as if that was what scientific papers are.
You'd be hard pressed to find a paper that says "it's true because everyone says so and we're authorities :^)"

Anyone who has bothered to look at what's written, knows that every paper has a methods section where they outline their approach and methodology in detail and then go on to present their results.
Same as before, if you don't see the difference between THAT and a simple appeal to authority, then you don't see the difference.

>Am I a lunatic for not believing in anthropogenic global warming?
Maybe you suffer from the same thing I do: OBJECTIVITY.

some of the points from these WWF articles are so incredibly inconsequential
>One claim, which stated that coral reefs near mangrove forests contained up to 25 times more fish numbers than those without mangroves nearby, quoted a feature article on the WWF website.
let me ask you directly: do you think this is reason enough to dismiss a 1200 page report out of hand?

>I find myself rather annoyed with that sort weaseling
So stop appealing to majority as if it has any impact on truth.
>I ask you if you think the evidence layed out in the scientific literature matters and you go on about how it doesn't matter how many people believe in a claim and how much of an authority these people are, as if that was what scientific papers are.
I asked a question, followed by a point: Are the claims valid and do they have merit? If not, appealing to 'how many' there are or how 'peer-reviewed' they are when, in reality, they cannot be replicated/subject to falsifiability is fallacious. Again, for the third time, the quantity is irrelevant. A majority behind a claim is redundant: if a belief were valid and truthful, it would take only one person to prove.
>You'd be hard pressed to find a paper that says "it's true because everyone says so and we're authorities :^)"
Then the claims are validated because they are truthful. Yet, the appeal to majority still persists...
>Anyone who has bothered to look at what's written, knows that every paper has a methods section where they outline their approach and methodology in detail and then go on to present their results.
Are the claims validated/replicated? Are they truthful? If not, then they are dismissed.

the Northwest Passage is still closed:

seaice.uni-bremen.de/sea-ice-concentration/

then let me re-phrase my question:
do you think pointing to the preponderance of evidence is an appeal to majority and therefore fallacious?

>do you think pointing to the preponderance of evidence is an appeal to majority and therefore fallacious?
Precisely correct because 'preponderance' is related to the quantity. If there are fewer pieces of evidence of high quality, it is far greater than pieces of evidence/studies that are numerous, but vapid/empty. Appealing to "there are many scientists who agree with this claim, lots of authorities agree, around 97% of them" is fallacious. Stating that "the hypotheses within the studies, listed here, have been verified/replicated and are proven truthful" is what you should be saying. Is that the case? If not, then appealing to how many unscientific claims there are is not relevant.

Could you provide us a peer reviewed paper which establishes beyond reasonable doubt that current abnormal global warming is attributable to human activity?

why do you keep asking if there is any merit to these claims, as if that was some kind of unresolved mystery. That's everything most scientific papers do (assess the validity of certain hypothesis), which is precisely why I keep mentioning them.

Wigley et al. (2012)

Huber et al. (2011)

Ribes et al. (2016)

(I would post direct links but my post gets rejected as spam)

It's not a matter of belief, you can have various evidence based theories and assign them different probabilities.

What would be insane is the idea that a global climate alliance run by the governments of countries that are hilariously corrupt like Russia, China and India would somehow effectively solve the problem. What a clusterfuck that will be.

Why not put some giant mirrors around the equator to reflect more light back into space?

There are infinitely many solutions to warming if it becomes problematic but we all know chinks are soulless subhumans who cannot be trusted to be a part of it.

>why do you keep asking if there is any merit to these claims, as if that was some kind of unresolved mystery. That's everything most scientific papers do (assess the validity of certain hypothesis), which is precisely why I keep mentioning them.
Because that's how you determine truth. Unless this has been proven, then the claims are dismissed.
Have these claims been replicated? How can one prove this claim false? What is the conclusion?

China is currently sailing there, you should tell them.

No

No you are not. Welcome to sanity and thinking for yourself.

>Unless this has been proven, then the claims are dismissed.
so when a big hypothesis ("anthropogenic CO2 emissions are having a direct impact on the climate in the present") still stands after several decades of scientific papers looking into the subject, what does this tell you about its validity?

they most certainly have been replicated. The main conclusion is that warming attributable to (anthropogenic) emissions of greenhouse gases is pretty close to 100% of the observed warming
here are a couple more papers who come to very similar conclusions:
Jones & Stott (2013)
Gilett et al. (2012)

"“Our approach is based on the “models are statistically indistinguishable from the truth” paradigm,”

Eh... Ok.

>9 out of 10 dentists recommend Oral B

It's basically what they hope you will believe without actually looking at the data, I mean look at how many dentist (who never mind are getting paid for their "opinion") agree so buy our product.