What would it take for Sup Forums to believe in anthropomorphic global warming?

What would it take for Sup Forums to believe in anthropomorphic global warming?

edx.org/course/making-sense-climate-science-denial-uqx-denial101x-5

Other urls found in this thread:

nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect
skepticalscience.com/positive-feedback-runaway-warming-advanced.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

An education

>anthropomorphic

Another 15-20 years of data and less government involvement. Anyone can take climate data and frame it to "prove" or "deny" global warming

MOOARE CIA ANTHROMORPHIC WARMING CHARTS

Even if say global warming isn't real, regulations on emissions is a still an important goal to achieve. Just look at this shithole I live in where the entire capital is a gas chamber. Vehicular emissions and burning fossil fuels is a large factor in that. So why is Sup Forums against regulations on pollution?

Okay, stop the gibs for 'environmentally endangered' countries, but you weren't giving much anyway. The Paris Climate Agreement is completely voluntary. Just stop the air/water/land pollution.

Don't become us, niggers.

FPBP

"anthropogenic" is the word you were looking for fucking leaf
This is why I don't buy into it like you faggots, I read the studies. Sure we have a hand in it, but we don't know how much or if we can even stop it.

>faggots
Why the homophobia?

Ok, retards. Is that better?

It would have to be real

Hurr durr I believe what the late night comedians tell me, I can't think for myself

I wonder if you retards think you could explain to a climate scientist who doesn't believe in anthropological global warming why he/she needs an (((education)))

>anthropomorphic global warming

Evidence. And by the way can you decide whether it's climate change (which has happened and will continue to happen every single day) or global warming

>anthropomorphic
please stop using words you don't understand in order to sound more intelligent

Evidence not theory

>What would it take for Sup Forums to believe in anthropomorphic global warming?
Free passage to Antarctica so that independent scientists could confirm it for themselves.

This, else all animals can go extinct and I still wouldn't give a fuck

You can never do it. It would actually have to happen.

I've had 30 years of failed predictions to warn me away believing any of it.

When u stop using arguments too authority

Because it's gay, now sage

>homophobia
Why are you here?

So, are we calling it Global Warming again?

Depopulating Africa is the best way to stop global warming.

If we had just left them swinging through the trees and sacrificing each other wholesale to their various gods, instead of trying to get them to wear clothes and learn English or Spanish or French and wash their hands after going to the bathroom, they still would be happily making mud pies with their own filth and dying like flies, and their population density still would be what it was ten thousand years ago; the tropical rain forests still would be thriving, and the lions still would be eating as many of them as vice versa. Most important, we wouldn’t be carrying them on our backs now whenever we go to a hospital; we wouldn’t be subjecting our kids to them in our schools; we wouldn’t have them shoved in our faces whenever we turn on a television receiver; we wouldn’t be looking for parts of the country to which we can flee where there are fewer of them; we wouldn’t be watching our whole civilization being pulled back down into barbarism by their dead weight. We could be masters in our own world, a cleaner and greener and healthier world.

>"Scientists"


nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970

More than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments. Those are some of the telling figures that emerged from Nature's survey of 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility in research.

...73% said that they think that at least half of the papers in their field can be trusted, with physicists and chemists generally showing the most confidence.

You want to know what it would take? I will tell you. Riddle me this fagman, if man made global warming WAS NOT happening what would the climate look like?

That is, if by reducing or eliminating CO2 emissions what would we have? What is the perfect climate?

It seems that when we have cold, hot, hurricanes, no hurricanes...fucking whatever...somehow it is man made climate change. No matter what happens...it is global warming or climate change.

So what the fuck are we working towards and what does this unmolested climate look like?

I just want to establish a baseline. Do you understand what I am saying? You can not just endless say that no matter what happens it is related to man made Co2 emissions!!!

This, and overpopulation of rice and curry niggers.

fpbp

>What is the perfect climate?
One that experiences only moderate changes in temperature over short periods of time such that existing species can adapt to any change

Retarded. The whole reason we want to stop climate change is to avoid humanitarian disasters. This is basically 'save humanity by killing people'.

I don't "believe" in anything.
You need a hypothesis that explains ALL past observations AND predicts.
Not only did your retarded Gaia religion not predict, it didn't explain the past. That's epic retardation.
Arrogance and hate are not science, Op. Why do you shit on science and tell us how smart you are?

you do know that the climate changed quite rapidly when the ice age ended a mere 10 to 15k years ago right ? hundreds of thousands of species could not adapt and went extinct and even more did so at the beginning of said ice age.

If you look at the actually studies on the whole 97% thing they took 20,000 papers out of 100,000 total who expressed views on global warming then send out questions to the authors of 9,000 of the papers to see if they believed in global warming. Of those only 2,000 responded and over 50% did not express and opinion on it but of the ones who did "97% believed in it. Then to verify their methods most of those either did the exact same thing or the asked 1-7 of agreement in global warming. Only 52% were 100% sure humans were causing it and only 2.5% disagreed. So around "97%" again even though the rest were unsure. Then if you dwelve into if it's significant or not the support gets even less. Here's one of them. P.S fuck you I'm going to bed.

99% of those "scientists" come from creationist universities and their papers are soaked in dogma.

Which part of the past does it not predict?

>you do know that the climate changed quite rapidly when the ice age ended a mere 10 to 15k years ago right ?
Yes

Oh whoops haven't looked at that in awhile it was only 43% not 52. Even less.

Anthropogenic. "Caused or created by humans.

Anthropomorphic. "Taking the shape of humans.

Anthropomorphic climate change sounds like a villain from Captain Planet

>97% people were in agreement that the world was flat

thank you

The sea level also rose over a hundred meters in that time period and flooded a lot of areas where older human cultures, plants and animals lived. The sea is still rising, but at a slower rate than a few thousand years ago.

Statistics is a science where you can use facts to tell a lie.

I firstly require proof that it's a globe first. Boring old fear mongering that goes back 100 years, that pesky sea level still won't rise.

That's not even true, but I'll humor you anyways.
>97% people were in agreement that the world was flat
>So if something is believed by 97% of people it MUST be false!
I can't wait til this happens to gravity.
Or the round Earth.
Oh wait, fuck.

statistics is not a science its a tool that can be used in the scientific context .

Completely wrong, why would anyone conduct a study like that? Very few papers actually take a position (because climate science is a big field that often looks outside current AGW) and of those that did all authors were sent the survey.

You're going to have to explain more, I know that sea levels have risen before.

Untampered data

>The sea is rising goyim!
Ebidence??

Ok, it's a tool that lets you use facts to tell a lie.

>Absolute temperature rather than temperature anomaly
>Farenheit americuck
>Uses raw data
Disgusting, data is adjusted to:

1. Account for changes in methodology/instrumentation and the systematic biases they introduce

2. Account for local, non-climactic influences (i.e. urban heat island)

3. Account for the movement of temperature stations

The accuracy of these adjustments has been verified, pic related

tide gauges

CO2 actually going up before temperature going up. Instead of what it actually does,
CO2 goes. up AFTER temperatures go up.

>Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature. and are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature...

Well, our "abos" migrated into the Americas through Berengia, which is now under the sea, along with a lot of old settlement sites. British Isles were once connected to Europe by a plain which was inhabited with people and wildlife and is now inundated with glacial meltwater following the end of the last ice age.

for Jews to say it is NOT happening

Evidence

>shitskins
>people

Just stop.

This cracks me up, the sea level rose 100 meters over 10000 years since the last ice age, and im supposed to shit the bed because of a 3mm rise over 120 years.

>Disgusting, data is adjusted to:
>1. Account for changes in methodology/instrumentation and the systematic biases they introduce
>2. Account for local, non-climactic influences (i.e. urban heat island)
>3. Account for the movement of temperature stations
>The accuracy of these adjustments has been verified, pic related
>Look I can quote SIMPLETON PSEUDOSCIENCE!

Bull Shit, they tempered the adjustments over the past decade to fit the USCRN, because they'd have egg all over their faces if it didn't. That doesn't change the utter fraud of their adjustments in general.

Funny how US data used to show no warming from 1895 to 1987; like the raw data here Once upon a time, Climate "Scientists'" salaries didn't depend on data tampering.

Global temperature increase of several degrees would increase the amount of arable land on the planet and generally make things more pleasant. Coastlines change constantly and that is unavoidable.

>studies into scientific agreement
consensus is not science
Galileo was put in prison because scientific consensus said that the earth was the center of the universe

How about an explaination as to why ice cores show that the earth goes through heating and cooling periods, and has done so long before humans had mastered fire, nevermind the industrial revolution. Yet in the 500 or so years we've been producing a significant amount of CO2 we've managed to produce enough that we're in danger of fucking up the earth.
How about an explaination as to why global warming is a global problem, yet the onus is entirely on the west to kill it's industrial capacity while China and India, among others, are free to do as they please.
How about an actually game plan as to how to tackle global warming that isn't some variation of giving the government money or giving our money to the EU so they can give it to African warlords to spend on a gold plated APC.
Why are we unable to discuss the above without getting lynched for wrongthink?

a blowjob couldnt hurt

That's not very good evidence, firstly the tidal gauges are suspect especially if they're anchored to sand and aren't serviced weekly to ensure accuracy because we're talking millimeter rates of change.

Micrometers, torque wrenches and all precision instruments for measurement need calibration after regular use. Especially if it's measuring tiny measurements. Also it will move if it's in sand, probably more than 1 mm.

Same with temperature gauges, and any other equipment expected to be reliable in the impossibly difficult conditions of the sea.
>Tides, waves, salt water, sun, object collision etc

Satellites are not even proven to exist. Cell phones can work well over the horizon (50km+) and further with directional antennas defying that apparently self evident curve.

So they say, but if anything that proves that earth is governed by different rules than our (((science))) priests tell us. Seems like a closed system to me, so I'll attribute those actions (area was lush, now under sea) to God. Believing these bill nye theories is just a safety blankie, we've all been lied to by (((them))) about everything.

The high tide line at your local beach will be the same in 10, 20, 100 years as it has always been.

If liberals started denying it.

By "pure coincidence" temp data tampering correlates to CO2 increase almost perfectly.

Its almost as if the entire "proof" of the theory is based on changing the data.

Stop believing all the horror stories your uncle-father tells you about government, Cleetus.

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. This is part of the 'runaway' effect, CO2 evolves from the ocean as temperature increases. Initial temperature increases can be due to CO2 or it can be due to any other forcing.

Doesn't matter if you don't think they're human they still mine your cobalt, and harvest your cocoa. You're retarded if you seriously think Africans dying is good for anyone. I'm also pretty sure behind that meme flag you probably come from one of the places whose agriculture will be fucked by increased temperatures.

>So you're telling me that I should be scared of 100m of water rise when a literal meteor set all of life back a millenia 20 gorillion years ago?
Yes user, mainly because its not going to just be 3mm, its not just sea levels and ecosystems are delicate. You flood out a few coastal species and there goes a good chunk of your birds which then unbalances all kinds of ecosystems inland and aquatic.

>Funny how US data used to show no warming from 1895 to 1987
>Only US temperatures
>Global warming

>Bull Shit, they tempered the adjustments over the past decade to fit the USCRN, because they'd have egg all over their faces if it didn't
Then whys the adjusted data fit control data?

says the german who has been lied to by his governments for the better part of 2 centuries by now ...

nothing
these poor souls are lost

it's not global warming, it's climate change
climate goes in cycles, but not so quickly and not so drastically - the planet will eventually correct it, sure, but it will be a violent and drastic correction
this world is dying, we're the cause. people are a virus and to deny it is to deny reality.

feel free to respond

>firstly the tidal gauges are suspect especially if they're anchored to sand and aren't serviced weekly to ensure accuracy because we're talking millimeter rates of change.
This might be cause for concern if we didn't have hundreds to tide gauges worldwide taking measurements daily and we didn't confirm these records with buoys, satellite and other methods of measurement.

>Same with temperature gauges, and any other equipment expected to be reliable in the impossibly difficult conditions of the sea.
These kinds of concerns are only really an issue in small sample sizes with poor coverage, its not like there's just a few thermometers floating out in the sea somewhere.

>By "pure coincidence" temp data tampering correlates to CO2 increase almost perfectly.
Or maybe its not a coincidence and as it has throughout all of earths history CO2 correlates to temperature see pic in

Fuck me those goalposts move fast

The problem I have with "climate change" is that the people pushing it are clearly trying to trick everyone into believing in it.

>oh it's soooo hot, that's global warming!
>the ice caps will melt and NYC will be underwater in 20 years
>oh it's soooo cold, but global warming is actually called "climate change" now
>we will enter another ice age
>actually no we are heating up and causing hurricanes, those poor people in puerto rico...
>silly idiots... weather has nothing to do with global wa- i mean CLIMATE CHANGE!

There's obviously something more than "science" at play here if we have to constantly be lied to and manipulated in order to believe in it.

Should have just told us the truth from the beginning, it's all a big funding racket for terraforming research so that we can colonize mars

>Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. This is part of the 'runaway' effect, CO2 evolves from the ocean as temperature increases. Initial temperature increases can be due to CO2 or it can be due to any other forcing.
>'runaway' effect

Sheesh, get your terminology right. If the effect were a "runaway"effect, Earth would be like Venus. What you meant to say is "positive feedback." (don't know why I'm helping a shill like you, but I digress.)

Anyway, you're babbling near-nonsense. What you're trying to say is that warming oceans out-gas CO2, which is true. But somehow increased CO2 started that warming in the first place. Sorry, the data as shown here,
shows no such thing.

Indeed Ocean Oscillations, e.g., the ENSO are significant drivers of global temperatures (CO2 is a tiny factor of the variance; roughly 5%). Pic related.

Don't forget that the proposed solutions to climate change always boil down to pointless gestures that succeed only at moving our money into state coffers. Even the name is a strawman, rejection of the climate change narrative is always met with accusations that we're ignoring the increase in global tempertures, when all we dissagree with is the claim that humans are causing it.

>>By "pure coincidence" temp data tampering correlates to CO2 increase almost perfectly.
>Or maybe its not a coincidence and as it has throughout all of earths history CO2 correlates to temperature see pic in

You IDIOT! That's a graph of the temperature data "adjustments" (tampering) not the actual temperature data!

Wow, those numbers look like polls taken of "Scientific agreement on the earth is flat" back when Copernicus was talking about the helio-centric model of the solar system.

Good thing science doesn't advance on consensus.

When mentally ill liberals don't have factual evidence, they go back to using "muh polls" of scientists.

You would have to prove that the current warming trend, which began 150 years before the Industrial Revolution and its substantial emissions increases, was somehow due to human activity.

> (You)
>>Funny how US data used to show no warming from 1895 to 1987
>>Only US temperatures
>>Global warming

Once again, you're being stupid. I showed a graph of raw data vs. tampered data of U.S. temps
The raw data shows little if any warming in the U.S., the tampered data shows a lot.
Then I show a reference to a scientific finding of no U.S. warming during a similar time period
This shows that those "adjustments" are ad hoc and not justified because they contradict the findings of well regarded scientists, when those scientists didn't have to protect their salary by getting the "right answer."

And all you can say is "muh U.S. Data!" If it weren't for strawman arguments, you'd have no arguments at all.

>If the effect were a "runaway"effect, Earth would be like Venus
In terms of heat? Probably not, past runaways have always been tempered by radical drops in solar forcing as the earth entered to cooler stages of the milankovitch cycles

> But somehow increased CO2 started that warming in the first place. Sorry, the data as shown here,
Does it not? From 2002-2012 for example CO2 clearly ramps up each time before a temperature increase followed by a peak of CO2 as the ocean degassed. Besides this using a graph like this to come to these conclusions isn't very rigorous, pic related shows the history of CO2 as it relates to temperature and time

>You IDIOT! That's a graph of the temperature data "adjustments" (tampering) not the actual temperature data!
Its proxy data

Fucking heat island effect top kek

>no controversy over the 97% figure
>Teacher of this course is literally John Cook who made the study

What would it take to get global warming faggots to suggest an actual solution?
>anthropomorphic
So leafs believe it's caused by furries?

Let it go roo you’re entirely full of shit. Data has been molested more than a Kevin Spacey party.

record cold here

>Once again, you're being stupid. I showed a graph of raw data vs. tampered data of U.S. temps
Global warming doesn't predict that temperatures in the US will necessarily rise overall, it just predicts rise in global average temperatures

>The raw data shows little if any warming in the U.S., the tampered data shows a lot.
Are we still on raw data? Explain to me how you can justify using data that contains errors for urban heat island, changes in instrumentation and station movements?

>This shows that those "adjustments" are ad hoc and not justified because they contradict the findings of well regarded scientists
From 1989? In other words scientists not exposed to the following 28 years of warming and all recent revisions? Sorry this authority is not nearly sufficient to take more seriously than study after study which has confirmed that data homogenisation works ()

>If it weren't for strawman arguments, you'd have no arguments at all
Jesus fucking christ dude don't respond to anything else just pay attention to this one fucking graph () that shows how perfectly adjustments correct for all mentioned effects.

Molested so well that it matches control data?

>are we still on the actual data? Use the data I have altered to fit my argument

""""""""""""actual data""""""""""""

>”””””””””””adjusted data”””””””””””””””

Explain this graph then , no one else has been able to

Please show me the exact questions asked, the scientists who responded, and how many responded to each one of those studies. We can go from there.

i don't care about science or objective truth as long as you faggots are getting dicked desu

Consensus can suck my dick.

>muh scientists agree

who cares? scientists thought dietary cholesterol and saturated fat was bad for you for 60 years and that was all a bunch of shit, completely and totally wrong, literally the opposite of reality

you think scientists understand how climate works? you're wrong

>appealing to your own authority that your make believe temperatures match a control you set up.

Nigger what

Having not read statements like
>A runaway greenhouse effect is a process in which a net positive feedback between surface temperature and atmospheric opacity increases the strength of the greenhouse effect on a planet until its oceans boil away.[1][2] An example of this is believed to have happened in the early history of Venus. On the Earth, the IPCC states that "a 'runaway greenhouse effect'—analogous to [that of] Venus—appears to have virtually no chance of being induced by anthropogenic activities."[3]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect

>what is a strawman

> (You)
>>If the effect were a "runaway"effect, Earth would be like Venus
>In terms of heat? Probably not, past runaways have always been tempered by radical drops in solar forcing as the earth entered to cooler stages of the milankovitch cycles
>> But somehow increased CO2 started that warming in the first place. Sorry, the data as shown here, (You)
>Does it not? From 2002-2012 for example CO2 clearly ramps up each time before a temperature increase followed by a peak of CO2 as the ocean degassed. Besides this using a graph like this to come to these conclusions isn't very rigorous, pic related shows the history of CO2 as it relates to temperature and time

Your argument are so appallingly bad, so sophomoric that I can help but think that you're in High School. Maybe middle school.
What's this?
>Does it not? From 2002-2012 for example CO2 clearly ramps up each time before a temperature increase followed by a peak of CO2 as the ocean degassed.
But compare the green to the blue on this graph
What you said is simply false. Are you just making crap up, or are you incapable of making an argument? I'm beginning to think you're a pathetic troll with little actual scientific training.

And what's this?
>In terms of heat? Probably not, past runaways have always been tempered by radical drops in solar forcing as the earth entered to cooler stages of the milankovitch cycles
Sorry buddy, you meant to say "positive feedback," not "runaway effect" because according to Climate "Science" there can't be a runaway effect on Earth, certainly not for CO2 outgassing. Even your buddies at Simpleton Science say that.
skepticalscience.com/positive-feedback-runaway-warming-advanced.htm

Yes, you were trying to use terminology that you didn't really understand. Please take AP Physics in your senior year.

>the science is settled!!
>so settled, we have to do SEVEN DIFFERENT FUCKING "STUDIES" on how settled it is!!
kys