You know the people who researched and figured out how to make a lump of plastic and metal fit in your pocket and run apps and GPS and contact people instantly on the other side of the world? ...Who figured out how to make a plane stay in the air.... How to understand wind and oceanic patterns to safely navigate ships, predict the path of storms....
You know...*SCIENTISTS*
... you realize that those are the same people who are presenting unanimous consensus, evidence, and agreement that the climate is changing at an extreme rate specifically due to human activity?
...So I'm curious, if you don't understand climate change, If you believe it's not happening, if you believe it's not out of control because of us...who did you get that information from? How did you verify it? What was the scientific, evidence-based, research-heavy background of the person who gave you that impression?
You know the people who researched and figured out how to make a lump of plastic and metal fit in your pocket and run...
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
iopscience.iop.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
skepticalscience.com
skepticalscience.com
twitter.com
I really dont give a fuck....
yeah man we are fucked.
i'll be long dead before any of it matters to me, so whatever.. i mean, i care for the earth but not enough to be a tree hugger
You do know scientist can be wrong on a large scale right?
Climates change quite frequently. I believe the only real debate is it's cause.
Climate Change is Real, mkay, OP, you fucking faggot. But it has NOTHING to do with Mankind.
Global Warming is a fucking hoax, nearly all credible scientists have backed off the Al Gore scam of Global Warming after the main authors of the studies admitted to lying and falsifying some data to give more credibility to their findings.
Take your hippy bullshit and fuck off.
>due to human activity
they don't have proof for that though
>unanimous consensus
>evidence
they said the same thing about the world being flat.
You're right!
But flogiston, or Phlogiston was a posited as a hypothesis, not as factualized theory.
Also, Phlogiston was posited in the mid 1600's!! More than 200 years before we even knew how ATOMS worked!
It's good of you to be skeptical, but there's a colossal difference in our current understanding of climatic change and our understanding of oxidation nearly 5 centuries ago.
Cool link though. :)
>factualized theory
>factualized
>theory
Its too late, hes too far gone...
even if you don't buy climate change, you need to accept that 1. fossil fuels won't be around forever, and 2. fossil fuels pollute our air and make us sick. look at china if you need evidence.
we need to invest in alternatives that are better for the environment (and ourselves) regardless, and thankfully it seems that the market is steering that way now anyway thanks to these alternatives finally beginning to reach competitive prices to fossil fuels.
...
>Ignoring historical evidence
65 mill years ago the earth was WAY WAY hotter than it is now... and life flourished. I mean for fuck sake we are here
>muh past 10k years
>muh past 100 years and car and Al Gore
Thats cute and all... but who cares? The earth has historically done better with higher temps and higher C02 levels are better for plant life.
[citation needed]
instead of all this free moral posturing your doing op, something you feel the need to do because you are a worthless jobless piece of shit and simply need something to help feel otherwise.
how about you just go get a fucking job and support yourself and the community.
world sure could be a great place, if there where not so many selfish autists in it, we could fix our own climate.
but all you guys really are is full of shit.
Actually, while climate change IS a natural process, more than 97% of scientists agree that climate change on the dangerous level's we're experiencing is a direct result of human activity.
Source: iopscience.iop.org
Citations please? Most climate scientists still attribute the sudden spike in change to human effects. yes, the planet goes through natural cycles, but not in the type of timescale that we are seeing in our lifetimes.
Jesus fuck are we hivemind or what
don't forget
en.wikipedia.org
The fucking problem isn't how warm it is going to be. Yeah, it was fucking hot in the Cretaceous, but it didn't get so hot in a matter of decades.
no just educated
>see thread.
>want to reply.
>Yet know it's all bait.
Meh.
It seems like you might not know the definition of "Theory"
A theory is not a guess. In fact, a guess isn't even a hypothesis.
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, *based on a body of Facts* that have been repeatedly CONFIRMED through observation and experiment. Such FACT-supported theories are NOT "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.
This is the case with climate theory.
retard/10
retardedcancer/10
You're especially retarded cause you try to justify yourself with lethargy.
If you're gonna cherry-pick the autistic exploits of certain scientists, make sure they're from the ones who are making real discoveries. When renowned scientists such as Bill Nye, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Michio Kaku; all of whom have contributed to humanity's knowledge in one way or another, are all saying the same thing -- that the rate at which we are burning fossil fuels is having a much larger effect than we can sustain -- it is in our best interest to listen and weigh the options.
Quite frankly, no one gives a fuck about combustion, so comparing the Phlogiston Theory to being "large-scale" is misleading. Science is still right a majority of the time...
provide 1 article where it used falsified data to support it's claims of global warming and make sure its a legitimate article. or don't do it and admit you're just pulling shit out of your ass.
>they said the same thing about the world being flat
>kys faggot
what are you fucking complaining about?
>didnt get hot in a matter of decades
[citation needed]
Alright how bout the bogdonof affair or the mice from hay hypothesis? Nigga even scientists lie for fame or money and GEE WHIZZ alternative energy sure makes a buck and makes you the hero of humanity, would it really surprise you if a group of the most intelligent people on earth made a lie up so they could sit pretty? Spoilers: its not the first time in human history (im looking at you organized religion) and it certainly wont be the last with people like you promulgating the rheotoric and demanding it be taken as fact.
>> "unanimous consensus"
Nope not even close to either of those things.
3 Things have to happen before 'global warming' as most people understand it makes sense;
1. It has to be proven and accepted that the climate is changing in an abnormal way.
2. It has to be proven and accepted that man is the cause of this.
3. It must be shown that something can be done about it.
There is no 'unanimous consensus' on any of these points. You can get kind of close on the first point, but not the second. On the third point you have much debate and that's the crux of the matter. It's the third point which politicians who are pushing a globalistt adgenda are beating us over the head with saying 'Oh my, something (restrictrive and expensive) must be done!'
The real question is, if the scientists were so capable, making our phones and hyper-advanced technology, why have they not found a way to reverse the effects?
The answer is that the scientific community has been doing everything in their power to heat up the earth. They must know that a hotter earth is going to be more beneficial.
FBI please don't take me away for figuring it out.
No scientist ever thought the world was flat. In fact it was known to be a sphere for thousands of years, before modern science. We even had its size, within 1% of the true value, just with two sticks, a guy, and some math.
Yes, scientists can be incorrect, thats why they CONSTANTLY are adjusting their means and methods based on new technology, understanding, and discoveries. that said, our ability to apply scientific scrutiny is getting stronger and our margin of errors are getting smaller. Sure, yes they could be wrong about mankinds' effect on climate change,, but with the best knowledge we have, it is almost assured that we are having an impact.
Regardless, learning how to not fuck the planet, regardless of climate change, is fucking beneficial. SO we should be doing it anyways.
Nuclear sounds good.
You want me to link the entire directory of past theories that have been incomplete or outright wrong or are you a big enough boy to do it yourself?
whats really funny is you morons still believe climate change is entirely caused by man, whilst yes we're not doing our selves any favors
the real cause is the sun, which is getting hotter each year and is continuing to do so, no matter what we do, earth is doomed much sooner than you think. but hey the scientists at nasa and all the other space agencys are retards too...
Another good example is Gravity.
The Theory of Gravity is the body of fact based evidence which explains the mechanics and actions of gravity.
The mechanics of gravity are, for all intents and purposes, fact.
You can say that the Theory of Gravity is not a fact, but your belief won't work out well for you if you decide to leap from a building.
We have never observed warming of this magnitude occurring this quickly. The PETM is the closest analog, and it is many times slower.
>fast temp changes dont happen
DO people not understand that earth is a rock rotating a nuclear ball - and slight pulls can drastically play with earth temps? ... No?
>Al Gore
Ok your right... Al gore is jesus and Coal miners did this with their fancy tractors
Jesus fuck humans are retarded
(You)
provide 1 article where it used falsified data to support it's claims of global warming
>and make sure its a legitimate article. I agree with.
>or you're just pulling shit out of your ass.
Why even try to talk to these fucking hippy pieces of shit.
1) vast majority agree, you will never get 100% (think flat earthers and Geocentrists)
2) Less than above, but still in a vast majority. Those who deny this tend to say we still have an effect, just not as large.
3) We can know 100% that we haven't started a cycle we can change, but in small scale we can see if we adjust our behaviour we OUGHT to be able to stem at least some of the damage.
>that said, our ability to apply scientific scrutiny is getting stronger and our margin of errors are getting smaller
and yet it is still being tampered with by social stigma, no one is allowed to present evidence to the contrary or question the validity of the "evidence" without being ostracized.
It is a theory but its incomplete unless you are deadset on theoretical (theres that fucking word again) particles like gravitons existing, you know the ones that are not observable.
No it isnt. The sun is actually in a colder phase. And that isnt enough of a factor anyway. All that matters is how much light the earth recieves, how much bounces off the earth, and how much is retained, CO2 traps light that normally bounces off, increasing the amount that stays to heat things up.
65 Millions of years ago, human's didn't exist.
200,000 years ago, first humans arise.
Now we are here, we have cities along the coast-lines. The concern is not as much about environmental costs as it is about economic costs. We should think about alternate fuels so that we don't have to worry about cities flooding because oceans rise several feet due to the melting polar caps.
Solar variability doesn't significantly drive climate trends on millennial timescales. Sunspot cycles were once thought to be a driver on centennial timescales, but that turned out to be mostly bunk.
>We have never observed warming of this magnitude occurring this quickly.
NO SHIT YOU DUMB MOTHER FUCKER
THE LAST GLOBAL WARMING EVENT HAPPENS MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO YOU STUPID MOTHER FUCKING RETARD
Peer reviewed will do.
Appreciate your looking for other answers: Thats good, eliminating variables is what science is about.
However, However, the rate change is so slight we won't notice anything even over many millennia, let alone a human life time.
Astronomers estimate that the Sun's luminosity will increase about 6% every BILLION years.
The sun's impact on Earth is relatively extremely stable in comparison to the climate change we are experiencing, specifically since the industrial revolution.
Good, fuck all those shitty cities.
1 degree celsius increase each year = 10 years left for the majority of people, world wide crop failures in 5 years
>We should think about alternate fuels so that we don't have to worry about cities flooding because oceans rise several feet due to the melting polar caps.
THATS WHAT TRUMP IS DOING
HAHAHAHA YOU FUCKING MONGS OPPOSE A PRESIDENT WHO WANTS ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES, BUT FOR RIGHT NOW, WE USE WHAT WE HAVE
HOPEFULLY WITH HIS DEREGULATION, WE WILL GET NEW ALT ENERGY TECH
They have, but it takes tremendous amounts of money, infrastructure, government support, and global initiative. We have energy alternatives, we can reduce consumption, we have carbon capturing technology, our cities can change to be better at integrating into nature, we can change how we eat, and many other things. We are stubborn as a species and have grown lazy and expectant of certain levels of comfort and standard of living.
SAID AL GORE BACK IN FUCKING 2000
Plus, we had tons of warming periods in the last few hundred thousand years. Every single time we come out of a glacial interval.
yeah thats why mercury's temp has gone up 300 degrees in the past 3 years venus has gone up 100 degrees and earth only 1 degree every year
I really wish i could be there in 5 years to see the look on your face when this shit doesnt happen, id give my right nut to see that fucking slackjawed visage.
atoms aren't observable does that mean atoms don't exist?
you can't look a at a cubic foot of ocean water and conclude: "Based on this sample, there are no whales in the ocean." Just because you can't observe something doesn't mean it isn't there, despite all the evidence that suggests it is there.
Uhm not so fast sweety... your know *REAL SCIENTISTS* you know the people who researched and figured out how to make a lump of plastic and metal fit in your pocket and run apps and GPS and contact people instantly on the other side of the world? ...Who figured out how to make a plane stay in the air.... How to understand wind and oceanic patterns to safely navigate ships, predict the path of storms.... your know not some feeelings majors.... 99% of them didn't actually say anything that.
WOW CLIMATE IS CHANGING NO WAY
THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE WOW
IM SO SMART
>wants alternative energy
>gives greenlight to two oil pipelines
correction: atoms are observable
my bad
here's a more accurate chart. also, i like how your chart shows the little ice age and present global warming at the same level.
Shhhh if you logic them too hard theyll fucking die.
Yeah theyre definitely observable but keep memeing the dream...
>en.wikipedia.org
>mass injection of carbon and fast warming
>looks like a minor extinction event with sea evidence
And guess what... even with all that.... We still turned out ok. We are here talking about it.
>not understanding the earth is a giant self recycling machine in a solar system with a sun that burps once in a while.
>thinking that all mass climate change comes from humans totally distorting ones view
You need to think past this planet. Man kind is one variable in about a million that you are missing from the climate equation
YOU CANT SEE GOD, DOES THAT MEAN HE DOESNT EXIST?
YOU CANT SEE ME, BUT DO I EXIST?
YOU CANT SEE KEK, BUT DOES HE EXIST?
You know China and India make up over 50% of greenhouse gas pollution anyways?
Even if we shut down every American factory right now we'd be fucked. Even if England and France joined us still fucked.
I see your concern, but we can do nothing about it by regulating companies, Hillary could do nothing, and Bernie could do nothing, surpise, Trump isn't gonna do anything because guess what he can do nothing. . What we need is a solution, nothing short of a way to just suck CO2 out of the air, not a band aid.
First off, there is no unanimous scientific consensus, that bs meme has been disproved to death.
Second, if you are all about consensus, why don't you believe the Earth is flat? There was a scientific consensus that the Earth was flat until heretics like Newton came along.
Three, if you believe that a person in a profession is infallible in said profession, you must also believe cops are always in the right when they kill, lawyers always respect the letter of the law, and all politicians are qualified to govern.
Finally, I will not post my scientific sources that disprove man-made climate change. Why? Because you will say that the PhD's on my side are fake and only science you agree with can be considered pure and legitimate regardless of experience or merit.
I do think the climate is changing, but I think other factors are in play. I think the fact that we are at the tail end of a solar maximum has more to do with climate than a trace gas like CO2 that makes up less than 2% of the total atmosphere and is absorbed by plants and the ocean.
>thinks you cant have BOTH
How does it feel to be absolutely fucking retarded?
YOU STUPID FUCKS WONT ALLOW PEOPLE TO USE NUCLEAR ENERGY WHICH IS FUCKING SAFE, AND WE DONT HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY TO IMPROVE THERMAL TO A MASS USABLE SCALE BECAUSE OF YOUR STUPID FUCKING MORONS AND YOUR REGULATIONS, SO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT?
HORSE AND BUGGY? STUPID PIECE OF FUCKING LIBERAL GARBAGE
Fuck reversing climate change
It's January and it was 77 degrees here today.
I'll take that over not being able to step outside without every fucking joint hurting instantly any time
"Model simulations of peak carbon addition to the ocean–atmosphere system during the PETM give a probable range of 0.3–1.7 Pg C/yr, which is much slower than the currently observed rate of carbon emissions" FROM THE WIKI YOU CITE
Climate scientists have looked for other causal vaiables. They don't work.
The most likely other variable would be Milankovitch orbital cycles, namely precession and tilt, which are both actually in minimums.
So, if the biggest factor which controlled the climate of the past ~2.1 MY was driving current climate, the earth should be cooling.
No other factors have been shown to have a strong causal effect except greenhouse gas concentrations.
I'll choose to provide this particular link because of the amount of peer review and discussion.
skepticalscience.com
this graph really exemplifies how unexpected this recent growth in temperatures really is, as we're supposed to be in a colder milankovitch cycle, where the earth's orbital eccentricity is away from the sun, leading to the cooling we've experienced up to now. This type of warming has happened in the past, the most recent led to a mass extinction event where 95% of life on earth was destroyed (skepticalscience.com
exactly
>the facts don't agree with my opinion so I'm going caps lock
dude look up ice core data no need to get triggered over science asshole
nuclear is good, but not for the koch brothers. Too bad petrodollar recycling encourages this behavior, it's fucking us over in horrific fashion (ron paul was right it's happening).
I am 100% in favor of nuclear energy. It's appalling that we have a relatively inexpensive and cleanish method for producing all the energy we need and we don't make use of it because the average person is too stupid to recognize a good thing.
comments section =/= peer review
Looking for science reviewed by academics, jackass.
SCIENCE DOESNT FUCKING AGREE WITH YOU
THERE ARE TENS OF MILLIONS OF SCIENTISTS, ALL WITH THEIR OWN IDEA
THE ONLY SCIENTISTS WHO GET THEIR RESEARCH PUBLISHED ARE THE ONES WHOSE GRANTS PUSH A POSITIVE AGENDA AND OUTCOME FOR THE PERSON PAYING
First rule is science. There are NO absolutes
Agreed, I believe they did energy consumption of an average north american compared to nuclear output, in a lifetime one person cunsomes about a hockey puck's worth of fuel if solely nuclear energy is used. Even if we cannot dispose of nuclear waste 10)% clean, its a tiny amount AND we actually can store it safely.
So an executive order for the Dakota pipeline is your idea of a solution? IQ tests for voting when?
Go to grad school. See if you still think science works this way.
>because the average person is too stupid to recognize a good thing.
THE AVERAGE PERSON HAS NO SAY IN WHAT ENERGY WE USE
ITS THE STUPID FUCKING LIBERAL GREEN MOVEMENT POLITICIANS AND DEMOCRATS PUSHING THE BAD NUCLEAR ENERGY BULLSHIT AND LOBBYING BRAIN DEAD CONGRESSMEN
Dude if you redpill them that hard theyll die.... ITS TOO MUCH PRESSURE.
Koch brothers don't like nuclear because it dips into their pockets.
>implying you learn all truths in 'grad school'.
Wake up, sheep
To be honest, I want to accelerate climate change. I hope we get the worst possible outcome. Kind of want to see what would happen. Life is too boring right now.
Nigga it 100% works this way, im sorry the world isnt the way you like it to be.
Careful, bruh. Eccentricity doesn't drive solar insolation cycles directly. You're thinking precession and tilt. Eccentricity basically just amplifies the other two signals.
A.K.A passing peer-review...
Also, not true, because some papers do go through the machine, and are subsequently tested for fallibility. If the "SYSTEMIC AGENDA" was real, you'd see no counter-claims ever published
MY PHD PROFESSORS ALL BITCH AND COMPLAIN AND CLAIM THAT IS EXACTLY HOW IT HAPPENS
EVERY
FUCKING
ONE
OF
THEM
YOU OBV ARENT A SCIENTIST BECAUSE EVEN DE GRASS TYSON, KAKO, HAWKING, THEY ALL CLAIM THIS TOO
Isn't it past your bedtime?
If you want to discuss why don't you first try reading my post first there was no way you could answer that fast, and turn off the caps. What science doesn't agree with me, the one in your head, because I'd like to hear it kiddo. And no, if you think theres honestly money in science I can tell you firsthand I've never made a buck from the amount of grants my lab gets, it just makes data collection easier for us. The money is in the oil company research that denies causation, and the suppression of EPA research further proves the lack of money in this fucking field.
Ah you're right my mistake
stop samefagging and go back to Sup Forums
I'M JUST SO FUCKING TRIGGERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRED
>what is paid opposition?
How about answering the fucking question?
>*SCIENTISTS*
>you realize that those are the same people
No. You alluded to several different fields, none of which are actually climate scientists. Totally different people with totally different sets of knowledge.
To declare "SCIENTISTS" some kind of monolith is to betray your totally null understanding of how science is actually done.
>unanimous consensus
No. Among actual climate scientists, there is still debate. The only "consensus" is among various frauds literally so much as *alluding* to climate change in papers published in other fields and still getting counted among "muh 97%" to declare a consensus. Them, and of course the politically,motivated hacks handing out the grant money.
People are skeptical of a "scientific consensus" claimed by politicians in the current age of doubt in whether or not scientific institutions are actually keeping their standards up. The EPA in particular has been raising questions about its peer-review standards for years now. Deal with it instead of throwing a shitty tantrum, faggot.
HAHAHAHAHAH
FUCKING RETARD
Depends on the field, but tons of journals thrive on being contrarian, a lot of natural sciences, anyway. People think that a great way to launch a big career is to totally disprove some established hypothesis.
AND I'M A PHD EARTH SCIENCE STUDENT MOTHER FUCKER
SOME OF US HAVE SOME FAITH AND JUST TRY TO DO GOOD SCIENCE
>citation needed
Its called google search. How about checking for something that fucking simple? And in all your days sitting in a chair growing fat how did you not see one fucking graph, or the 4 others already posted in this thread?
(1/2)
>You know the people who researched and figured out how to make a lump of plastic and metal fit in your pocket and run apps and GPS and contact people instantly on the other side of the world? ...Who figured out how to make a plane stay in the air.... How to understand wind and oceanic patterns to safely navigate ships, predict the path of storms....
Those were all the same people? Goddamn, that's talent...
>you realize that those are the same people
Yeah? The same exact people? Really?
>unanimous consensus
Because science is driven by consensus, right? And are you sure it's unanimous...? Because it's not.
>evidence
And, you know, they haven't changed their opinions on the raw data at all over time, have they?
>and agreement
Consensus AND agreement.. wow science wow!
>that the climate is changing at an extreme rate specifically due to human activity?
Except that last point has problems
>So I'm curious, if you don't understand climate change
I do, in fact, understand climate change, thanks for asking
>If you believe it's not happening
I do, I just don't see the evidence that humans (or CO2) are a significant driving force in the fairly moderate differences we've been seeing
>if you believe it's not out of control because of us
Well, it isn't. Not one model, out of hundreds proposed, has accurately predicted climate change in the nearly four decades we've had accurate and objective temperature readings.
>who did you get that information from?
Scientists. You know, the ones that are not part of government organizations trying to push policy. Ones that don't believe there is consensus in science, ever. Because consensus inherently negates the scientific method.
No its not.
The natural changes they argue about occurred over millions of years.
The changes and measurable levels of chemicals in the atmosphere THAT WE PUT THERE since the industrial revolution onwards, is the reason the change is coming within less than a century.
I think there is no debate in the fact that 100 years is LESS than millions of years. But I'm sure they'd contest that too.
Fucking ay we are so fucking fucked