Climate Change (((Scientists)))

Question for you pol.

The main argument I run into with Climate Change Believers is the whole "99% of scientists believe it"

What's the best line of defending against this argument?

I've personally subscribed to simply ignoring it and stating since no accurate model has been created those scientist must have based their conclusions on false data.

This doesn't have as great an impact on the libtard as they shoot back "youre not an expert". Neither are they but that just brings us back to respecting the "authority".

Anyone able to weigh in?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Rqm9X7ftgDo
nationalreview.com/article/425232/97-percent-solution-ian-tuttle
express.co.uk/news/uk/146138/100-reasons-why-climate-change-is-natural
express.co.uk
climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2015-climate-science-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU
youtube.com/watch?v=pRenGy0cg5s
skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm
meteotrentino.it/clima/pdf/rapporti_meteo/IPCC_Impacts_Adaptation_and_Vulnerability.pdf
ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-FrontMatterA_FINAL.pdf
researchgate.net/profile/Jason_Lowe2/publication/225490676_Johns_T_C_et_al_Anthropogenic_climate_change_for_1860_to_2100_simulated_with_the_HadCM3_model_under_updated_emissions_scenarios_Clim_Dyn_20_583-612/links/5728c0a708ae2efbfdb7e434.pdf
journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7139797.stm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

It was debunked

Read how the 97% consensus was made
From what I remember, it was basically some journalist sent a survey to like 10,000 scientists, and only 1000 responded, and of course those like 970 scientists agreed that the Climate WAS changing, but they only said yes to that question, not to the extent as to how much man has influenced the global warming

Holy shit thank you! I'll look that up. That's an instant kill shot.

The thing is, there is always been global warming. Mostly because the temperature on earth isn't constant, and changes over long periods of time. It's just a cycle, nothing more. The earth is getting warning but mostly on its on because it's switching to the next "age" . But all we are doing is shiting on the floor and running air and water which helps speed up the process.

Take this argument and turn it into climate change. Libtards BTFO, or they have to say they can't disprove Christianity.

youtube.com/watch?v=Rqm9X7ftgDo

No argument here. I'm just looking for ammo to destroy the liberals go to argument of appealing to the (((Authority))).

Unfortunately everything you said while true doesn't hold water for them because they can just argue "but the experts!!! 97%!!!"

Thanks to
I found the following,
nationalreview.com/article/425232/97-percent-solution-ian-tuttle

yea i just read that too
I kinda guessed on the numbers i originally said, but yea that was basically what happened.

sample manipulation

Kek
thank you for that, gave me a hearty chuckle.

Love too see individuals with autonomy and critical thinking skills share knowledge with each other.

Never change Sup Forums

Just explain this.

There are thousands of people in Antarctica year round, to measure water levels?

People unironically buy this?

>"99% of scientists believe it"

FALLACY
Nobody is arguing that climate isnt changing
But 72% scientists say that theres no good reason to think its man made.

All the CO2 humanity ever produced is less than annual vulcanic activity.
Climate change is a natural occurance and has nothing to do with industry.

How stupid can burgers get?

Science isn't partisan, user, and an appeal to authority is only fallacious when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise. There are plenty of Mechanical engineers being presented as authorities for climate change, you deride actual experts.
>All the CO2 humanity ever produced is less than annual vulcanic activity.
This would be interesting, do you have a source?

Could you get me the source on that 72% statistic?

And Just an FYI for anybody reading. This is all in preparation from the HUGE liberal outcry when Trump starts undoing Obama's climate change initiatives..

I argue with them differently. I take this line of logic to open their mind:

Fine let's assume you're right and the climate is changing. What makes you think we can even stop it? If we are going to spend billions or trillions of dollars on stopping climate change but fail maybe we shouldn't bother. It will be very expensive for us to attempt this fight.

We would be better of spending the money on mitigation/adaptation of climate change. Prepare for year-round farming in Canada, more erosion control on beaches etc. The Earth is infinitely more powerful than we are.

That argument gets them thinking and at least they won't be able to parrot back talking points to you.

So many things wrong with it.

Number comes from the IPCC. This is not a scientific organisation anymore. It comprises politicians, advocates, advisers, consultants, some scientists, lobby groups, environmental organisations and other agenda-driven people. They openly state this.

Also they do their best to silence or redact anyone in the 3%.

Their numbers also include many totally false claims of support, such as Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace who is an active campaigner against the hysteria of climate change. He had to work hard to get his name off reports and studies he never gave his endorsement.

Also, 97% believe in climate change =/= 97% think it warrants urgent action.

Lastly, when Einstein published his Theory of General Relativity there was a great deal of contention surround it at the time. So much that a few collaborating scientists got together and published a book titled '100 scientists against Einstein'. To which he replied, "if I'm wrong, just one will do." This is science by consensus in a nutshell.

Same thing happened with Tectonic Plate theory as well, which only become popular in the late 1940s. Until then it was all about the 'land bridges' and a shrug of the shoulder to explain why marine fossils were turning up on the tops of mountains.

Science should not be partisan but unfortunately it very much is. Or rather Politics uses what it claims is science to further its agenda.

I have seen evidence to counter the climate change hypothesis and yet it is still taboo to even discuss it because of "97% of scientists" and "mountain of evidence" arguments.

If you have information that supports climate change I implore you to please inform me. I will not scoff at it. Send me to a website, article, and/or journalistic paper. I will read it and love to learn.

I am a mechanical engineer myself and love reading technical papers and deciphering statistical data.

An appeal to authority can be very fallacious in multiple scenarios. I find the 97% os scientists appeal to authority very fallacious considering the lack of identifying information about said scientists or how they based their conclusions and to what degree to they agree with each other.

I'm posting from a phone right now so not really.

But you will find a lot of shit googling NATURAL CLIMATE CHANGE and maybe that one too.
express.co.uk/news/uk/146138/100-reasons-why-climate-change-is-natural

>express.co.uk
There are some fine scientists in that journal

I misinterpreted what you were arguing and my above response was a result. After re-reading what you said I want to say your points have been respectfully noted.

You can't stop it. The plan is to get the fuck out.

climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
draw your own conclusions.

Read the article he cites. Overwhelmingly climate scientists do not deny that it is happening. Less than a 1% of the respondents to the study said that the knew that humans had a 0% or negative effect on climate change. Many more are undecided, but that does not mean that they don't think that there is anthropogenic climate change.

pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2015-climate-science-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf

I really like the examples you gave on how science very often progressives thanks to the dissenters.

It saddens me how much of a church Science has become amongst millennials.

No. Don't. You don't draw your own conclusions on medicine and law and expect to be right, you defer to experts.

Just a few things, take them as you will.

"The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature"
G. S. Callendar, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
1938

"Infra-red absorbtion by carbon dioxide, with special reference to atmospheric radiation"
-- G. Callendar, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meterological Society 1941

"Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications"
James Hansen, Science 2005

Scotese, Paleomap project.

"The faint young sun problem" - Georg Feulner, American Geophysical Union Review of Geophysics, 2012

"Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content" -- Magdalena A. Balmaseda1 et al, Geophysical Research Letters, 2013

"Earth's energy balance and implications" -- Hansen et al, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 2011

"An atmospheric pCO2 threshold for glaciation in the Late Ordovician"
-- M. T. Gibbs et. al, Geology; May 1997
Palaeoecology 1999

"CO2-forced climate thresholds during the Phanerozoic" -- D.L. Royer, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Dec 2006

"Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?" -- N. Shaviv and J. Veizer, GSA Today, 2003

"Bathymetric and isotopic evidence for a short-lived late Ordovician glaciation in a greenhouse period" -- Brenchley et al, Geology; April 1994

"Reconciling Late Ordovician (440 Ma) glaciation with very
high (14X) CO2 levels" -- CROWLEY T. J. ; BAUM S. K., Journal of Geophysical Research 1995

Copied and Saved, thank you

>can you give cherrypick arguments for my preconceived conclusions for me?

Because you have the competencies to understand technical papers on Bathymetrics

You may not expect to be right but you can definitely question the merit of a lawyer or doctor.

The only reason we blindly accept medication or to be put under for surgery is because of the Hippocratic oath and the consequences for breaking it.

If I'm going to base my vote around what politicians are claiming a scientist told them, I'd like to examine their claims and draw my own conclusions.

Won't know until I try

consensus among scientists is not a proof

He said he's a Mechanical engineer and that paper is relatively digestible.

Consensus doesn't matter. Facts matter.
Climate change alarmists can't give you any facts, that's why it's all about shaming you and trying to scare you.

A lot of people on Sup Forums still believe in the alarmist agenda. It's sad. Nothing I can do about it.
In maybe like 20 years every single one of you is going to know for a fact that it was just bullshit political agenda.

My preconceived conclusion was that climate change was man made.

Recent evidence has caused me to change my mind.

It can change back.

Has provided material

I sure as hell don't blindly accept medication or go under for surgery. I ask my doctor about the mechanisms of treatment, about the side effects, recovery time etc. I don't provide him with my own facts. I use his expertise on the facts to make the choice that I think is right for me.

I believe in man-made climate change.
I still think that liberals are a bigger threat for humanity.

What does the study of underwater depth of lake or ocean floors have to do with mechanical engineering?

I'm not providing anyone with "my own facts" I am currently doing what could be called "getting a second opinion" in your scenario. A very common practice for a patient.

Engineering is the study of problem solving.

To get my Mechanical Engineering Degree I also had to take courses in Circuitry, Chemistry, Civics.

You're going to read a couple of articles badly, claim undue expertise and confirm your suspicion so you can feel smarter than everyone else.

What does the study of underwater depth of lake or ocean floors have to do with problem solving?

I also just want to add, and this applies to everybody lurking, there is literally nothing stopping you or anyone from reading academic journals.

While many are written for experts in the topic, there are plenty that are written for laymen.

Video is almost an hour, but it goes into detail how the temperature data is being manipulated.

youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU

Just read the IPCC reports. There's the evidence, reasoning, and conclusion packaged together right there.
But of course, climate skeptics can't read.

FACT: All the CO2 ever produced by humanity is less than one year of natural volcanic activity.

Surely 90% of climate scientists have ignored this one simple fact.

In order to problem solve, very often an engineer needs to research the problem itself.

Opposed to popular belief very often an engineer is given a problem with lots of unknown elements outside of their current expertise. By researching the issue and finding a solution the Engineer develops their toolset for future similar issues.

What I'm saying is I'm applying this same mentality in an attempt to learn more about a controversial subject. AKA bettering oneself.

Actually considering the current state of the academic integrity, i wouldn't be surprised if they had. And now I AM speaking from experience.

oh and before you jump down my throat this doesn't mean I accept what
said at face value.

Subaerial Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year. Volcanic activity might influence climate change in other ways though.
Mörner and Etiope (2002)

they've been saying every few years were gonna have an ice age for a long ass time. they've been wrong so many times so that's all the evidence you need. we were supposed to be in an ice age by 1965 then 1980 then 1990 then 2000 then 2007 then 2010 then 2013 then 2015 now its 2020

>Unfortunately everything you said while true doesn't hold water for them because they can just argue "but the experts!!! 97%!!!"

generally when you want an informed opinion regarding a sensitive and nuanced topic you look for expert consensus.

if you weren't so blinded by red hot saltiness toward libtards maybe basic risks to our long-term survival wouldn't be trivialized into a partisan talking point too.

Actually the majority doesnt support it, but the guys at the OECD do it. And they are the ones in power.

There was a hacker leak a few years ago that published the emails of them and how they falsified the CO2 and climate data, to make climate change more imminent. Was even in the news in germany with hardcore damage control and manipulation.

I think its not bad to become indipendant from fossile energy though. We need solar panels anyway to fuel spaceships in the long run.

Plus germany has now own fossile energy, so why not get of the grid and make solar available?

Fucking this
Sciencefag here
We get this shit all the time from both sides. It's really hard for scientists to get their arguments out there in a nonpartisan manner.
>A new method of genetically modifying salmon is discovered that causes them to grow during all 4 seasons instead of just during one, essentially quadrupling the rate at which we can produce fish
>Liberals cry that somehow this is a bad thing when they don't know a thing about genetic modification
>We are at a point now where it's really hard to develop new antibiotic and antiviral treatments because the tiny motherfuckers are adapting too fast, but at the same time we are so close to completely eradicating certain diseases
>Libtards who refuse to vaccinate their kids whine about autism while their children die of leprosy, undoing decades of work as the diseases are given the chance to adapt to new treatments
>Climate scientists all around the world do their own independent studies and 97% of these studies reach the same result. These studies were done independently of one another, in every nation of every political and ethnic background
>Conservatives think that somehow this is a scam by the DNC so the jews can get more money
>Fairly recent surveys show that 40% of Americans trust science
People are fucking dumb.

Probably already mentioned, but climate change exists. But there's hardly any link to humans or CO2 causing it.

>this pic

WAIT WAIT WAIT°!!!
... I never heard of this.
The climate change IS real though, isn't it?
Fuck I never should have been on Sup Forums...

It's pathetic how many Americans fall to the merchants of doubt.
youtube.com/watch?v=pRenGy0cg5s

Do you people even check the backgrounds of the sites and scientists before believing whatever bullshit they might feed to you. Much of these scientists are either from corporate lobbying firms or funded by them mastering in fields that are completely or almost completely irrelevant to climate science.

>study enviromental engineering
>Majority of Profs say its man made
>Read books on it
>Some people who never read a book says its all a hoax because ???

Even a ape could understand how the greenhouse effect works and how burning coal/oil and gas that was trapped under the ground for hundred of millions years is adding to it.
Burning down the trees in Brazil Africa and Asia is also not deniable.

And rising avarage temperature about 4 C° in a span of 200 years without external factors like volcanos or other catacysm is sure a sign that somebody made this all up because they want to ????

Man-made climate change is a fact.

Science isn't about consensus. Literally. No one has to agree with anything for truth to be truth.

Further, who are these 99% of scientists? Can you give me a list? Every single name and how they align?

(That 99% of scientists is about a specific niche of them that signed some agreement with the IPCC back in the day or something)

>All the CO2 humanity ever produced is less than annual vulcanic activity.
How fucking stupid are you? Seriously what the fuck.
skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm

First result in Google. Suka blyat.

Seriously what is wrong with you people? Climate change is a hoax? If you take one look at the unbelievable amount of emissions were are responsible for a drooling retard could figure out there will be consequences.

I'm not saying the whole climate change thing is set in stone, or that there isn't propaganda fueled by hidden interests, but this is some Fox news tier bullshit I held most of you above.
I am very disappoint in all of you.

The best way to deal with the climate change talking point is to avoid arguing the science. Scientists argue science by performing experiments and publishing the results in scientific journals. When you are engaged in verbal combat with a liberal you do not have time for all that bullshit.
The climate is changing. Fine. Climate change is neither good nor bad. The climate of the earth has been changing since long before humans came to exist. There is no way to tell how much human activity contributes to climate change. If its a little hotter or a little colder than last year that is no reason to pass a bunch of shitty laws that force manufacturing companies to buy new equipment. Ethanol is a shitty fuel - its like pouring syrup into an engine. If you put 10% ethanol gasoline into a weed whacker it will destroy the motor. If you put E85 in your car it voids the warranty.

Google is a liberal company. I tried to spice up my ethanol line with some figures but all Google gave me was pages of pro-ethanol propaganda.

Climate change deniers are just as dumb as flat earthers, holocaust deniers and creationists.
Don't do that.

>Science should not be partisan but unfortunately it very much is.
And how can you solve that?

The public need a simple metric because they don't want to have to sift through any debate, but the whole 'x% of scientists say' thing is retarded.

Here are a few papers/articles for you guys to read, I'm sure you will expertly disassemble them and count out all the flaws in the methodology and analysis.

meteotrentino.it/clima/pdf/rapporti_meteo/IPCC_Impacts_Adaptation_and_Vulnerability.pdf

ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-FrontMatterA_FINAL.pdf

researchgate.net/profile/Jason_Lowe2/publication/225490676_Johns_T_C_et_al_Anthropogenic_climate_change_for_1860_to_2100_simulated_with_the_HadCM3_model_under_updated_emissions_scenarios_Clim_Dyn_20_583-612/links/5728c0a708ae2efbfdb7e434.pdf


Seriously though, the science itself is pretty simple. It's just concentration, the absorbtion of heat by specific compounds and how much of those compounds we are releasing. The greatest impact is probably ocean acidification desu.

Don't go refuting claims if you have not personally done research on peer-reviewed evidence. It makes you just as bad as the liberals protesting on the street who can't name one of Trump's policies.

>Libtards who refuse to vaccinate their kids
This is so fucking dumb, where does this come from? How can people even come up with shit like this?

Don't have the sauce on me, but the "99%" line is "99% of climate scientists".

That number is achieved by sending out ~30k surveys, of which over 1/3 weren't returned, and then finding that of the ~13 people who identified themselves as Climate Scientists, 12 of them believed man-made climate change was real.

Literally just flubbing the numbers to push their agenda.

Your country really does you citizens a disservice by permitting your atrocious education system.

I thought the "Americans are retards" thing was a meme, but then I worked there all last year. They are so stupid they are like a different species, I'm serious. Like abos.

What do you know that the scientists don't?

Or are you jsut another Koch shill?

Many scientists don't believe it. Freeman Dyson, a theoretical physicist at Princeton University, is an outspoken climate change skeptic. Muh scientific consensus is just more fucking horseshit pushed by the left. According to their faggotry, we should've been underwater 10 years ago. They just keep pushing back their predictions every time they get them wrong.

Google is a search engine you fucking mongoloid.

Here's the first result from bing, says the exact same shit.

journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html

How the fuck do you function on a day to day basis if everything you disagree with has a boogeyman pulling the strings.

>What's the best line of defending against this argument?
99% of scientists are wrong because reasons.

Face it, your position is groundless. The phenomenon of AGW is essentially a proven fact. Stop trying to deny science and instead point out how carbon emissions and global temperatures have leveled, and that advances in renewable energy technology are doing plenty to help without onerous government involvement.

Also point out that global warming isn't even that massive of a danger. Slap the shit out of anyone who brings up the "muh sea level" alarmism, it's less than a foot per fucking century. We can adapt to that.

Global warming is(/was) real, but it's a non-issue now.

Kill yourself you numale liberal retard cunt. The only provable man made climate change was the hole in the ozone layer, which we've fucking fixed already.

>What's the best line of defending against this argument?
That it isn't an argument.

>he believes in models which have consistently been wrong every time they've been tried over the past 40+ years
And climate change deniers are the dumb ones? :^)

Turns out was actually no Arctic ice this summer :^)
>"Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.
>"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7139797.stm

>ur rong, just rong

Why is this always the response? I'm not a denier, more an agnostic, but this just pushes me further to their side.

u should be satanist

Research is readily available to anyone that wants it, I linked a few a couple of posts ago. You are right though, it's really counterproductive to just state your opinion without backing it up.

"research"
By the same people and using the same models which have been wrong every single time they've been tried.

What same people?

also
Why are they wrong? They've provided statistically significant results again and again, across countless studies. All peer reviewed.

I'm very conservative but I work for the National Trust so I have an interest in the environment from a professional and hobby standpoint, for clarity.

Humans are having a adverse impact on the environment in general and we are rapidly speeding up the natural rate of climate change (which would be slow).

I am not some 'numale liberal retard cunt' but the data is easy enough to search yourself, looking in actual scientific journals. Go on JSTOR and search 'climate change', you can read the methodologies and the experiments themselves and try to dismantle them all - it's not as easy as it seems.

Climate change is real, it naturally exists and we are at very least slightly speeding it up.

Both climate change supporters and deniers are wrong, it's irrelevant if it's super fast or slow, natural or our fault.

What matters is that there is a certain preferable temperature that is good for human life and efficiency, so we should put as much research into weather control, climate manipulation etc.
There are literally no downsides and it will help us in future teraforming of planets.

>Why are they wrong? They've provided statistically significant results again and again, across countless studies. All peer reviewed.
No they haven't lol.

>99% of scientists believe it
Someone believing it is not a reason for another person to.

CC attempts to make science the highest political priority and reinforces the need for grant money when the biggest character flaw slung at scientists is their robot like autism persona. So believing in it gives them a leg up to claim they really care about the human individual.