[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/sci/ - Science & Math

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • Use with [math] tags for inline and [eqn] tags for block equations.
  • Right-click equations to view the source.
  • There are 58 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]



File: 1560132925128.jpg (1.19 MB, 2900x1936)
1.19 MB
1.19 MB JPG
why do people gobble up fabricated models on climate change with variables tweaked for the desired outcome?
>>
Why do laymen even pretend like they can have an opinion on a science that is not their specialty?
Like, do they do this with everything else?
Do they go tell the guys as CERN how to interpret collision data?
It's all just fake-skepticism.
>>
>>10718408
Nobody should have an opinion on things that aren't their speciality whether they are a science or not.
>>
>>10718411
Having an opinion on science makes no sense. The whole point of science is that you don't need to have an opinion because their is a systematic way to best approximate the truth.
The goal of laymen should be to figure out who the experts are and what the expert opinion is rather than to redo millions of hours of science work to figure it all out for themselves which is literally impossible.
>>
>>10718422
*there
>>
>>10718385
>eating all the taco salad
>leaving the crispy bowl untouched
What did she mean by this?
>>
>>10718408
It's not that laymen are second guessing the climate scientist's good-faith interpretation of the data. Laymen believe climate scientists are acting in bad faith by intentionally misrepresenting said data to support a political agenda. They aren't saying they are smarter than the scientists, know more than the scientists, or anything like that. They believe the scientists are distorting the truth therefore they mistrust the stated conclusions. The public not having the training to analyze the data themselves do the next logical thing and just assume the opposite of climate science consensus must be closer to the real truth.
The distinction is subtle but it's there.
>>
>>10718385
For the same reason people gobble up fabricated models of no climate change with variables tweaked for the desired outcome, humans are rationalizing animals not rational animals.
>>
>>10720290
CC: The scientism debunking thread.
>>
>>10720290
If anything it's worse because it requires a vast global conspiracy that somehow hasn't been exposed.
>>
What is your information suggesting that academic consensus is wrong? some fat sub 80iq white guys who want a 4th Reich.
>>
>>10718408
>Like, do they do this with everything else?
Yes, actually.
They're experts on the Rothschilds and Bilderberg group and the secret activities of the rich, while making less than 20K a year.
They can decipher and interpret the most obscure Satanic, Jewish, and Illuminati symbols in pop culture with supreme confidence, but can't speak a second language.
And they can debunk vaccination, all without having the medical knowledge to explain the active ingredients and mechanism of action of cough syrup.

Being a middle-aged loser from a podunk town pretty much gives you superpowers.
>>
>>10718411
>muh opinion
you can have an opinion on the results but unless you are qualified in the field you can't expect your opinion to have any relevance.
Its like you are going to the doctor and he tells you you have lung cancer, you are not going to say:" yea doc that's how you see things but i think you are overestimating, i read on the internet..blabla...and so i think i just have a cold and i don't need any expensive therapy"
>>
>>10718408
> scientists: You should be skeptical of things and ask questions!
> also scientists: Not those questions!
>>
>>10720622
>humans are rationalizing animals not rational animals
nice. love this quote did you make it up?
>>
>>10720662
Club of rome
>>
>>10722959
> scientists: You should be skeptical of things and ask questions!
>also scientists: can you at least google it before you waste my time with such a retarded question?
>>
>>10722978
any secret society with a Wikipedia page clearly isn't doing anything right
>>
>>10722995

Thanks for making my point for me :^).

Bye friend.
>>
>>10722998
Your point is that the onus is on scientists to spoonfeed you every piece of information no matter how trivial? We live in the fucking information age, do some research.
>>
>>10718385
What variables are tweaked for the desired outcome?
>>
>>10723007
Knowing OP probably the existence of greenhouse gasses.
>>
>>10720662
It has been exposed though, you just don't accept that it has been because you believe the conspirators.
>>
>>10723010
To be fair to op adjusting values for literally anything that isn't CO2 will change how important a model ends up saying CO2 is.
>>
>>10723373
Ok provide evidence
>>
>>10723414
It also completely changes your results
>>
>>10718385
Media.
Umbilical clamping.
Clamped.
>>
File: citation-needed.jpg (3 KB, 124x124)
3 KB
3 KB JPG
>>10718385
>why do people gobble up fabricated models on climate change [citation needed]
with variables tweaked for the desired outcome[citation needed]?
>>
>>10721264
methinks thou protesteth too much
>>
>>10718408
>Like, do they do this with everything else?
Yes, you need only look at the average /sci/ poster
>>
File: 1550562207566.jpg (7 KB, 211x200)
7 KB
7 KB JPG
>>10720662
So....the jews were behind it after all. It all makes sense now.
>>
Is there a scientific consensus that in 20 years the planet will be destroyed? If not then what is the point of all this arguing?
>>
>>10718408
>Why do laymen even pretend like they can have an opinion on a science that is not their specialty?

When did the debate about climate change change from fact based to opinion based?
>i think climate change is real
>well I don't think it's real, and my opinion is just as valid as any other
>>
>>10726944
Because the real debate is about banning cars, planes, industry, meat, travel, basically everything about our modern society in order to fix a problem that nobody can actually see the effects of. If people actually were being displaced from their homes because of climate change you can bet people would care. Nobody really gives a shit about an invisible prophetic vision of doom.
>>
>>10726934
No one cares about the planet really, what we care about is the effects of the planet on humans. (mainly economies)
>>
>>10726956
>Because the real debate is about improving our cars, planes, industry, meat, travel, basically improving everything about our modern society in order to fix a problem that I''m too stupid to understand and refuse actually see the effects of.
fix'd
>>
>>10718385
Research funding.
>>
>>10726973
Who is arguing against improving cars? But have you heard people who argue about climate change? Everytime you will hear someone say it is too late we need to ban cars now in order to fix climate change. If you give a reasonable response like how about instead we support electric cars and renewable energy people just bitch at you that it takes too long. Also there have been 0 climate refugees so far polar bears are still the only ones really effected by this.
>>
File: maxresdefault.jpg (37 KB, 1280x720)
37 KB
37 KB JPG
>>10726983
>Who is arguing against improving cars
For a while, the car companies. Right now, anybody who stands to make a profit off inefficient vehicles. (cough, big oil)

I think it's only very dense urban areas that want an outright ban on cars in favor of public transportation. Big cities can have serious smog problems. Realistically, if they can improve public transportation to a point that cars become obsolete while in the city, then wtf is wrong with banning cars in those cities?

Again, that all hinges on whether they can improve public transportation enough, but if they removed all cars then thats alot of city funding for roads and infrastructure that can be spent on public transportation methods. I think it's one of those situations where when a major city 1st changes the old infrastructure for cars will still exist in many ways, and people will complain, but after a while they'll build up public transportation systems so well that people will never want to go back. You could look at this as akin to growing pains. Like how the everyone in Europe complained about metric when it 1st came out, and now the thought of anything other than metric is reserved for retards and Americans. No offense to Americans, being one myself.
>>
>>10727024
>I think it's only very dense urban areas that want an outright ban on cars in favor of public transportation. Big cities can have serious smog problems
That's a totally different issue from climate change though. But regardless not every city will be able to build a great public transport system. That being said driving in a city fucking sucks and I usually try to do as little as possible. Anyways though these debates are so stupid in my opinion. You have people denying humans effect the environment vs people acting like tomorrow there will be 1 billion people dead from climate change despite it having a pretty negligible impact on peoples lives. Other kinds of environmental destruction has been more impactful for people directly. Like your example with smog.
>>
>>10727038
>vs people acting like tomorrow there will be 1 billion people dead from climate change despite it having a pretty negligible impact on peoples lives

The fear is by the time people start suffering it'll be too late to change anything.
Imagine that an asteroid is coming to hit earth in 40 years. There's a 75% chance it'll impact and destroy all life, and 25% chance it'll do nothing. It's possible to deflect the trajectory of the asteroid with a bomb, but ONLY if we do it in the next 5 years. If we wait it'll be too close to earth that deflecting it's path will still result in a hit. Now imagine that every wacko on Fox news is saying that 75% chance to hit us is highly over inflated and we should just bet on the 25% or more chance that it'll miss. Sure we could wait 5 years and then we'd be 100% certain if it'll hit or miss, but it'll be too late to act by then. This is the cause for urgency from the climate change scientists.

If we wait and do nothing, it'll be out of our control. The choices we have are literally, fix it now while we can, or pray everyone is wrong and just hope we don't die. That "pray and hope" mentality is what infuriates people the most. Scientists don't put much faith in prayer.
>>
>>10727092
It depends what is meant by fix it now. You say it is just innovating on transportation and energy well nobody is really disagreeing with you except shills. But I don't think most people arguing about fixing climate change think that is enough. Many of them say planes, cars, meat, should all be banned. Or more likely they say one of those should be banned but ignore the others. I think it is mostly shills on both sides. Oil shills vs green energy shills. People just trying to sell you some bullshit product. That being said it is good to care about the environment but flying in a plane or driving to visit grandma isn't causing anyone to die or hurting anyone.
>>
>>10727116
>but flying in a plane or driving to visit grandma isn't causing anyone to die or hurting anyone.
death by a thousand cuts is still dead
>>
>>10727138
So I should just tell my grandma to go fuck herself?
>>
>>10727310
>A) we must allow global warming to happen
>B)grandmas everywhere will suffer with loneliness

That's binary logic. A or B decision making is flawed.
Your logic is flawed.
>>
>>10727364
What I mean is me flying in a plane to visit grandma isn't really killing anyone or causing any harm. Me not visiting grandma means she will be sad and lonely. One is clearly a better decision than the other.
>>
>>10727373
>What I mean is me flying in a plane to visit grandma isn't really killing anyone or causing any harm.
And I'm saying, YES, it does cause harm. If you and 100 million other people think exactly like you do, then yo all share the responsibility. Just because you have 100million other scapegoats to share the blame doesn't absolve you of responsibility.
>>
>>10727416
Who has it harmed?
>>
File: sancta greta.jpg (50 KB, 313x448)
50 KB
50 KB JPG
>>10718385
it's a religion
>>
>>10727443
>https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/WCAS-D-13-00059.1
>The Syrian conflict that began in 2012 has many roots, including long-standing political, religious, and social ideological disputes; economic dislocations from both global and regional factors; and worsening environmental conditions. This paper argues that key environmental factors include both direct and indirect consequences of water shortages, ineffective watershed management, and the impacts of climate variability and change on regional hydrology. Severe multiyear drought beginning in the mid-2000s, combined with inefficient and often unmodernized irrigation systems and water abstractions by other parties in the eastern Mediterranean, including especially Syria, contributed to the displacement of large populations from rural to urban centers, food insecurity for more than a million people, and increased unemployment
>>
>>10727443
death by a thousand cuts you numb nuts

Let me give you another example.

A person in a village is hated by everyone. One child throws a small stone and hits that person. That single stone does almost no damage to them. A single stone won't kill anybody. Now that girl has made an example and proven to the villagers the idea that "a single stone can't kill someone" so then one other villager decides to throw a stone and it hits them, because they can't and they know it won't kill them. Again, almost no damage is done. But now all the villagers are catching on and throwing stones. Everyone is throwing stones with the belief that "this single stone I throw won't kill them so I won't be responsible so it's perfectly fine to do this." The poor bastard is belted over and over and over with rocks till he dies from being stoned to death. After the person has died from stoning, can you still say "one stone thrown can't kill a person?" Even if you say a single stone causes no damage, you could still argue the very idea of "another stone couldn't hurt" is what killed them. Allowing this thought to spread is ultimately what lead to that person's death. If that is the case, then ANYONE who doesn't speak in favor of global warming right now and today will be the persons responsible. Even if you do nothing or say nothing, simply allowing this thought of "one more couldn't hurt" makes you culpable in the act. This is why the quote "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" exists. Doing nothing and allowing the mentality of "nobody is being harmed" is just as bad or arguably worse than the act of polluting itself.
>>
>>10727463
So a whole bunch of sociopolitical factors and some of it relating vaguely to climate change but really just caused by a drought.

>>10727488
Except throwing stones at someone is obviously a hateful and hurtful thing to do. Wanting to physically relocate yourself quickly so you can visit your friends and family is a completely well intentioned thing to do. And the actual negative effect of it is unknown and unrelated to the act itself. Flying is only arguably bad because it uses fuel which is converted to C02. But what is the real impact of it? You don't really know you only speculate. It is like saying people should stop going outside because the sun damages your skin and gives you cancer. It is true but at the same time is giving up the sun worth it?
>>
>>10724809
It's more of "the abyss also stares into you" type thing,
>>
>>10727609
>too idiotic to understand simple cause and effect
>>
>>10727721
Am I the idiot? You are the one not thinking about it more deeply than just "everyone is stupid except me"
>>
>>10727747
Given the context it's really more a case of you just being stupider than everyone else.
>>
>>10727747
If you read the paper and others on the subject the main takeaway is that the drought can be quite confidently attributed to increased global temperatures. However, It's overly reductive to say that climate change was entirely responsible for the situation because that implies that a similar drought would effect everywhere similarly which isn't true.
I'm not really interested in that though. The question was who has climate change harmed, and the Syrian crisis is a prime example.
>>
>>10720290
>assume the opposite because of a lack of the affirmative
>logical
three_laughing_philosophers.jpg
>>
>>10726983
Did you know that your mom doesn't have a politically relevant opinion because she doesn't have any social power to ban said cars?
Stop being retarded.
>>
>>10727807
Okay from now on I will never fly anywhere or drive anywhere and stay inside my tiny box master. And I will make sure to only eat vegetables because meat is for the excelcites my master.
>>
>>10727900
listen, all things have a price associated with it that isn't a monetary price. Consequences might even be a better word. Even "staying inside my tiny box" has it's price. The point is to be able to make choices and decisions that have a price that we're able to pay, or able to deal with. Using planes and cars has a price of increasing global warming. Up to very recently that price was one we could afford and deal with. But the situation has changed. The price has changed. Using a car/plane today has more consequences now than it did 40 years ago. Does that mean you shouldn't use them? No. But the price/consequence of cars/planes is still changing. Some day pretty damn soon we're not going to be able to afford to deal with the consequences of using planes and cars at our current rate. We'll either need to find a newer way that's cheaper (i.e. less consequences) or stop it all together. That day isn't now. Ignoring the problem isn't going to make that day not come. It will happen eventually. Right now what you should be doing is bitching about why we don't have an alternative to our planes/cars that's more affordable or has consequences we can deal with AND right now you should be mindful that the things you do DO have a price associated that's non-monetary. It's called basic responsibility. Stop crying like somebody took your toys away cause they haven't. They're just asking you to be mindful you're making a mess of things that SOMEBODY will need to clean up in the future, and as a common courtesy, try to keep that mess to a minimum.
>>
>>10721264
Burn
>>
>>10726944
>well I don't think it's real, and my opinion is just as valid as any other
I dont know if you havent noticed but western culture is becoming increasingly anti intellectual, non critical, and overly sensitive to challenge. People think their opinions should always have merit regardless of their merit. I blame shit parenting personally.
>>
>>10721264
LMAO at this unhinged obsession
> middle-aged loser
projection
>>
>>10727092
> "wackos on fox"
> le reddit atheism prayer sux m I rite
> durr pascal's wager but for climate change
> faith sucks, but have faith in our climate religion!!
You are the most obvious teenager summerfag of all time.
>>
>>10727452
I agree. Why are so many of them extremists?
>>
>>10718385
Too true. We're seeing glaciers melt at rates that were predicted for the end of the century and getting real close to the first blue ocean event. Pisses me off how conservative official models are when I can see the ever-worsening change with my own eyes all around me. Collapse is probably coming within thirty years and no one is admitting it.
>>
>>10728973
And your counterargument? Shut up unless you have a legitimate point.
>>
>>10728010
Except I do all of those things but you still bitch at me.
>>
>>10729045
No you
>>
>>10718408
>climate scientist
A plurality of climate scientists work for the corporations promoting, developing, researching, and manufacturing “green” tech to be sold at inflated prices through no bid contracts to national, state, and local governments.
They are literally “lobbyists with a credential,” and they are paid for that, not the love of earth and science that you naively believe they hold, showing you’ve never been around climate scientists before in your life and that you actually just eat the shit the media tells you; “science says.”
>>
>>10727092
You just described the reason the ancient Aztecs put girls on alters and cut out their hearts still beating, new age religitard who thinks he’s not.
>if we don’t give the blood god blood, the rain won’t come!
>>
>>10727092
Anon if you think humans can control the earth climate output at will ‘inthe next five years’ you’re literally retarded.
If humans disappeared the quaternary ice age would still be ending.
>>
>>10729330
>equating irrational beliefs induced by Aztec religion with consensus of the scientific community about climate change

u fucking wot?
>>
The truth about climate change is that the logical conclusion to fix climate change is to never have kids, never travel, never eat meat, don't purchase items that require lots of energy to make, don't heat your home, don't use air conditioning, and actually better yet you should probably just kill yourself because simply existing is damaging to the Earth. Basically you people are anti-human and all because scientists looked at climate data and saw a problem and said maybe we should be worried about this. You take such little information and draw catastrophic end of the world prophecies out of it. You people have existed throughout every era and in every era you people turned out to be fucking wrong. People would talk about some god being pissed off and how they will destroy every one unless you do some dumb bullshit. It's the same now you people are just misanthropic assholes. You should worry about the environment and the effects humans have on it but don't fall for these anti-human retards. Live your life and be green if you can but don't sacrifice happiness for some completely unfounded prophecy (for instance if you want to have kids then have kids).
>>
>>10729338
It’s a very apt comparison, doomsayer.
>>
>>10729338
>20 years ago all the climate scientists agreed that the world would be ending today from manmade climate change.
>now today in 20 years if we don’t go back to Australopithecus living with a high tech elite controlling us the world will end.
And twenty years from now it will be “twenty years from now” again.
>>
>>10729338
Aztec religion was the consensus of the wise priests of Aztec’s ivory tower.
>>
>>10729348
Really? Show me one published paper that says the world would end in 2020
>>
>>10729352
is this his beautiful false equivalency really your best argument?
>>
>>10729358
It isn't really a false equivalency. The only actual consensus is that greenhouse gases effect the climate and that it is something to be concerned about. That is it. There is no more conclusion you can draw. You can't say there is consensus that the Earth will be destroyed in 50 years if we don't immediately cease all carbon output because it literally doesn't exist. Yet you fools pretend like that is the consensus when it isn't.
>>
>>10729353
They didn’t claim “the world would end,” in 2020, the media and Al Gore (equivalent to you) did.
The media and retards like you who consume it continuously misconstrue real research to make doomsday prophecies:
>>
>>10729343
>>10729348
>>10729352
Here's the problem with your supposition

If science as a whole and general is equal in validity to Aztec priests, then science as a whole is sham. If science as a whole is a sham, then why do space rockets exist or nuclear energy exist if they're just barely as smart as some Aztec priests? Why do computers exist? The fucking thing you're typing on wasn't invented by some Aztec priest!
>>
>>10729363
So? I don't care what Al Gore says. We're talking about climate science so talk about what the science said.
>>
>>10729366
>science as a whole
>a huge media conglomerate + corporations with a vested interest who hire lobbyists with climate associated degrees to spread doomsday fears.
The media voice of “science” isn’t equivalent to “all of science.”
The fact that you anthropomorphize “science” into an individual with opinions shows you as low IQ and explains how you were easily led into a religion that claims not to be one.
>>
>>10729366
>If science as a whole and general is equal in validity to Aztec priests, then science as a whole is sham.
Not really though. Humans originally used gods as a way of explaining the natural world. That has evolved into using science yet still science is not a perfect system. Science is at it's best when all variables can be controlled and you can guarantee what you are testing is the cause of the results of your test. In practice this isn't how it really works and lots of variables are left free to influence the results. This is why our knowledge is constantly changing because science can't always get it right the first time.
>>
>>10729370
Science didn’t say anything, people with microphones did, retard.
>>
>>10729376
Stop anthropomorphizing “science.” This is your first step to intellectual freedom.
>>
>>10729361
>https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
This is the scientific consensus.
>Midwest. Extreme heat, heavy downpours and flooding will affect infrastructure, health, agriculture, forestry, transportation, air and water quality, and more. Climate change will also exacerbate a range of risks to the Great Lakes.
This is my region alone if you knew anything about farming you would know what a huge fucking problem that is.
>>
>>10729377
>>10729348
>>20 years ago all the climate scientists agreed that the world would be ending today from manmade climate change
It's a very clear statement why have you shifted the goalposts to the media?
>>
>>10729380
What? Do you even know what the words you are saying mean? I didn't anthropomorphize anything? Also science is a human made system.
>>
>>10729340
>You people have existed throughout every era and in every era you people turned out to be fucking wrong
Really fucking dumb comparison, seeing how in the last hundred years human population rose by a few billion people and we started pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Also, human civilization was actually, without exaggeration, on the brink of destruction in the 20th century. Now we're facing crop shortages and desertification due to global warming. One bad summer, one really bad heatwave, and millions will starve. Societies become unstable the moment there's no food on the table. Nations will go to war and massive refugee crises arise. Pakistan and India have nukes. Have you ever spared a thought on that? No shit climate scientists aren't talking about this, they have absolutely no clue about geopolitics.
>>
>>10729381
That doesn't refute anything I said. Those headlines and statistics do not give any definitive time frame. They are merely telling people to be concerned not to halt all progress now.
>>
>>10729386
It's a good point, the human reaction to the effects of climate change is what will kill billions.
>>
>>10729386
That's always been true though. The climate can change rapidly without human intervention. Just like one meteor would wipe all life out as we know it. You are just mad because not everyone is as misanthropic as you.
>>
File: 1560549685622.jpg (26 KB, 499x497)
26 KB
26 KB JPG
>>10718385
>/pol/ zoomer climate denial thread #478582
Ah yes, another day for original content I see...
>>
>>10729383
I should have clarified:
The media portrayed that “science said” all this stuff, just like today.
Naturally science doesnt actually say anything, the TV does and you eat it up.
>climate scientists agree
Is actually just propaganda.
>>
>>10729391
My bad for not addressing the fact that your first statement was an idiotic straw man.
>>
>>10729384
You’re so dumb you can’t even comprehend it, sad.
>>
>>10729400
With no timeline NAsA’s Statement is more like “we gotta say something in favor for money, but don’t put a timeline so when it doesn’t happen, we can say we meant 10,000 years from now.”
>>
>>10729396
formerly repetitive content
>>
>>10729400
I don't get how anything I am saying is unreasonable. I am not arguing that you shouldn't care about Earth or be conscious of the effects you have on the environment. What I am arguing against is listening to doomsayers and giving up things that you really don't need to give up to make doomsayers that hate humans happy (like travel and children).
>>
>>10729395
>The climate can change rapidly without human intervention
And? The only reason it's changing rapidly NOW is because of human activity, so how is this in any way relevant? I'm not misanthropic, I'm just not dumb enough to think we can fuck the planet up and all get away without consequences.
>>
>>10729409
>I'm just not dumb enough to think we can fuck the planet up and all get away without consequences.
Neither am I but you don't want to listen to my arguments.
>>
>>10729395
A flood basalt is a one in several hundred million years event, while a life destroying meteor is a one in several billion years event. Comparing it to something that's happening right now on purpose is pretty stupid.
>>
>>10729409
Ok Al Gore, thanks for telling me what to think.
Young people don’t remember the weather 30 years ago, so you can easily convince them the 30 year or 100 year harsh weather cycle has never happened before.
Did it rain today and you are scared?
>>
>>10729415
The earth can self regulate co2 levels even when they are much higher than today, and has literally done so through its history.
>>
>>10729408
Virtually no one argues travel or children should be banned, maybe a few insane ecoterrorist types. So can you at least agree that government policies to incentivize reductions in emissions are necessary?
>>
>>10729421
>incentivize reductions in emissions
>policies that make it harder for poor people to output energy
>not limiting travel
It’s like you can only think one step. You are literally a retard or a shill.
>>
>>10729418
You're right, over half of human CO2 has been absorbed by the oceans and biosphere but we've still increased CO2 from 280 to 415PPM over the past 100 years with no sign of slowing down. If we stop emissions completely the earth will return CO2 to pre industrial levels over the course of several centuries
>>
>>10729421
Right? We should all go back to cave man days except for the military and big tech. They will keep us safe in our green pastures of permanent climate stability.
>>
>>10729424
It's much better than the alternative.
>>
>>10729425
Ya 415ppm isn’t high as far as earth history is concerned. The earth is fine.
>>
>>10729421
>So can you at least agree that government policies to incentivize reductions in emissions are necessary?
Maybe I don't know what is best maybe government maybe the free market for instance Tesla has made huge advancements in electric cars. I'm not someone who is familiar with economics so I don't know if that was pure market or government involvement that caused it. But I never said any of that was bad I am talking about doomsayers. Also if you actually believed the Earth could end by 2050 or that 1 billion people could die by 2050 then sacrificing travel and children is pretty logical. But there is no real evidence that is true and it is just insane journalists. The point I am trying to make is that the climate debate is really not a debate between science and backwards idiots. It is a political argument based on journalism and a fraction of it actually involves real science. Most of the point of it is to achieve some aim that is primarily economic or political. But I am all for people who care about the environment that is a very good thing, ironically one of the best things you can do is just make sure your trash goes into the right bin, recycle, be active and walk/bike instead of drive if possible (not always possible for everyone). Don't waste a lot of resources. That's the most you can really do unless you are actually passionate about doing environmental work.
>>
>>10729426
Once again having to resort to a straw man. Are you not capable of a real argument?
>>
>>10718385
Most people who know something about global warming are well aware the estimates are intentionally leaving out the most severe fedbacks, to make the results more acceptabke.
>>
>>10729425
>300 years
The problem with climate science is the over abundance of unknown variables and failed predictions that always somehow don’t invalidate the religion.
>>
This isn't even a rational argument anymore.

It's just false argument after false argument.
>>
>>10729433
See:
>>10729427
It’s not a strawman it’s literally the religion’s goal.
>>
>>10729430
No one really cares about the earth, we care about the effects on humans, mostly economic. and the effects on the ecosystem. 415PPM is the highest CO2 has been in 3 million years and the absolutely insane rate of change makes it impossible for life to adapt like a normal shift.
>>
>>10729441
turning it into a straw house doesn't make it an argument
>>
>>10729436
>this level of delusion.
Ya that’s why it’s on TV every day, they are holding back to not scare is. The news is known from preventing things being overhyped, our loving and watchful guardians.
>>
>>10729437
>failed predictions
Name some
>>
>>10729443
>pseudoscience
>>
>>10729432
voting for a party that actually recognizes the problem and will do something is the biggest effect you can have.
>>
>>10729447
>he doesn't know about the runaway cycle/chain reaction that's going to occur from melting methane hydrates and melting permafrost

Our future is so fucking fucked right now that people would start looting if they knew what the future holds.
>>
>>10729453
name calling isn't an argument.
>>
>>10729450
Paragraph 14.2.2.2 page 774 of the third IPCC meet where the IPCC states:
>In research and modeling of the climate, we should be aware that we are dealing with a chaotic, nonlinear coupled system, and that long-term predictions of future climate states is not possible. "
But NBC news didn’t tell you that did it, retard?
I’m in the industry.
>>
>>10729458
>the absolutely insane rate of change makes it impossible for life to adapt like a normal shift.
>not pseudoscience
>>
>>10729455
Well first of all your single vote isn't worth much. Second there are many political issues you can say the same thing about and some of them may involve voting for the opposing party to climate change. But you see this is exactly the point I am making. The whole point of the climate change debate is to get you to vote for a political party. If you can convince thousands or millions that the world will end unless they vote for you then you have turned your one little vote into a million votes which is worth a lot more. That is how our system of government works. It isn't really "for the people"
>>
>>10729466
What the fuck are you even talking about?
>>
>>10729457
>doomsday doomsday doomsday, more blood for the blood god!
See:
>>10729462
Stay blown the fuck out. Your type of prediction isn’t possible, it’s political propaganda instead.
>>
>>10729480
I quoted the pseudoscience claim ina previous post, after being challenged on my claim that that’s what it was.
Are you reading disabled?
>>
>>10729462
>In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles-will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.
>but such statistical information is essential.
>but such statistical information is essential.
the out of context quote game never gets old
>>
>>10729483
Your claims have absolutely no basis, you provided no explanation, yet you still defend that what that anon was saying is pseudoscience?
>>
Nothing can stop it now. The only thing we can do is geoengineering with sulfur dioxide to stop runaway feedback loops.
>>
>>10729489
Nothing you quoted brought what I did out of context or contradicted what I quoted.
>statistical analysis is useful
Does not contradict or remove context from
>In research and modeling of the climate, we should be aware that we are dealing with a chaotic, nonlinear coupled system, and that long-term predictions of future climate states is not possible.”
It’s making me laugh out loud to see your attempt to mental gymnastic around this.
>>
>>10729500
this level of stupidity is tough to deal with but I'll try. Any kind of modeling is never a concrete vision of the future. It's a computation of as many complex variables and the probability of multiple individual outcomes. This is why in climate modeling multiple models with differing scenarios are always used. And none of this changes the fact that models have already provided meaningful predictions. The fact that any of this is news to you just proves you're beyond ignorant of the topic.
>>
>>10729472
No shit the climate debate is going to be a political issue. Any reasonably effective solution that can be enacted in a reasonable time frame is going to involve substantial policy changes. Obviously biased research methodology should be avoided at all costs, but it makes no sense to blame scientists and the discourse in general for being too political, when the results of their research dictate the nature and extent of policy changes that need to be made.
>>
>>10729512
I don't really know what you are arguing. I never said anything against scientists.
>>
>>10729509
>moving goalposts
My original claim:
>>10729437
I proved my claim with citation from a source you’ve never read, yet rely on. You’ve performed mental back flips and acrobatics ever since.
Climate change models are non predictive long term, so it is obscene to inhibit human freedom on the basis of the most severe models that the highly politicized AGW movement relies on.
>>
>>10729509
They don’t say that the long term climate models “aren’t concrete.” They are saying that realistically they can’t predict future climate states, but that collecting data is still useful.
Yet the AGW movement literally relies on catastrophic long-term models, saying that these models are what “science says,” even though the IPCC itself does not consider those models as predictive and acknowledges that the earth climate is too complex for us to be able to do that.
>>
>>10729514
You seem to be blaming people for using climate data to push political agendas, and I'm saying that's a necessary consequence of the nature of the issue.
>>
>>10729520
I'm saying people blow it out of proportion.
>>
>>10729523
There will always be some people who blow it out of proportion, like the hardline doomsdayers you mentioned, but the actual research generally points to climate change being a very serious and urgent matter that requires quite drastic political action to address in order to have a high confidence of actually solving the issue. That part isn't doomsdaying, it's just facing reality.
>>
>>10729531
And I should add, the distinguishing factor between doomsdayers and reasonable proponents of policy change is the quality of research they have backing their claims.
>>
>>10729531
Okay but I can barely effect that. Not everyone is an influencer or politician. And I will vote for whoever I think is the best choice at the time I won't swear loyalty over uncertain predictions if something more urgent needs attention.
>>
File: proxy.duckduckgo.com.jpg (27 KB, 480x360)
27 KB
27 KB JPG
>The Plekhanovs’ research estimates that an approximately 38,000 square mile installation of solar panels in a desert near the equator could generate enough power to serve the world’s electricity needs
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/russian-physicist-brothers-plan-resurrect-teslas-wardenclyffe-tower

The solution to global warming:
>rebuild Wardenclyffe tower
>place solar in every uninhabited desert
>place wind farms in dead center of atlantic/pacific where there's no cargo ship traffic
>transmit power across entire globe
>solar works WITHOUT batteries because the sun will always be shining on some place of the Earth

I know people like to take a shit on Wardenclyffe saying it's the ramblings of a mad man, but this guy invented modern electricity. What if he knew a secret he took to the grave?
also see >>>10728069
It would have the accidental side effect of making laser rifles, gause rifles, railguns, flying cars, humanoid robot armies, giant mechas all a possibility. All these things drastically would change the military landscape and pose a security risk so it's logical to assume if it did work, the military would need to bury it for national security reasons.
I know that all sounds crazy but sometimes crazy shit turns out to be true. Is it too crazy though?
>>
you've provided zero examples of failed predictions. then tried to back up your initial with an out of context quote because you don't understand that prediction is all about probability not a magical crystal ball. You've proved nothing.
>>
>>10729519
Once again it's all a matter of prediction the probability of differing states. no model claims that it knows exactly what the climate will be like but it provides a probability that certain perimeters will be within a certain margin of error such as temperatures, and it's much much more accurate than guessing or giving up like you seem to be advocating.
>>
>>10729538
As long as you're well informed it's your choice as to what issues to prioritize, but people in general are quite misinformed about the economic and humanitarian consequences of climate change.
Climate predictions have to be heavily statistical in nature, but that doesn't preclude making predictions about certain future trends with high confidence, like higher average temperature, rising sea level, changes in weather patterns such as more devastating storms, changes in crop output, shifting ecological equilibria, etc.
>>
>>10729439
your not a rational r-gument
>>
>>10722997
>not setting up wikipedia's reliable source and original research rules so that you can get your society's own sources of fake information as the only references allowed on your page
Your attitude is exactly why any competent secret society who can't 100% guarantee nothing ever leaks out would have a wikipedia page. Really smart would be faking ongoing vandalism against the page so you can get it locked down with only what you want seen.
>>
>>10718422
retard
>>
>>10729547
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/30/some-failed-climate-predictions/

you'll have to go through the actual reports yourself because the links are changed
>>
>>10729462
ipcc has an underestimating bias
https://weather.com/science/environment/news/2019-06-14-permafrost-melting-sooner
>>
>>10728973
>I have decided you belong to a strawman archtype and therefore I can ignore the argument while claiming moral superiority
Sweet, sweet zoomer child.

>>10727609
Commercial flying is contributor, the same way driving a v8 SUV for every little thing is a contributor. People are concerned with cumulative effects from individual actions of millions. For you to cover your eyes and pretend it's grand conspiracy to attack your littlest baby boy life is not only logically dishonest, but completely irresponsible to a growing issue.
>>
File: 1543075086666.jpg (316 KB, 607x819)
316 KB
316 KB JPG
>>10729326
>Being this disingenous
>>
>>10729408
You are a) moving goal posts b) pushing strawmen c) refusing to acknowledge provided evidence. Instead a) act like an entitled child b) claim you will be physically harmed c) pretend your idiotic contrarianism gives you intellectual superiority over """the normies"""'.

Truth is if we are to mitigate the effects of climate change we have to *improve* our technologies in ground and air transportation. Improve and alter the unrealistic demand on land and energy intensive foods and change the way cities are developed to minimize car dependecy (protip, the u.s. was heavily lobbied to create the suburb-car inefficiencies of today as well as creating highways rather than public transit).

All people are asking is for you to stop interferring on proposed solutions, specially when it's based on nothing but dishonest fear mongering and narcissistic entitlement.
>>
>>10729453
>LALALALALALA I CANT HEER UR ARGUMEIN IS FALSE
Another day in the life of the schizo denialist
>>
File: 1541128392340.png (874 KB, 908x918)
874 KB
874 KB PNG
>>10729519
>>10729516
>I don't understand what statistics modeling is, the post
Quick, tell us how climate science isn't a real science because ""you can't do experiments""".
What bright young red pilled denialist you are.
>>
>>10722959
I fucking hope this is bait
>>
>>10726956
Coral reef bleaching is happening, thats evidence enough for me
>>
>>10729398
>Is actually just propaganda.
Lmao no it fucking isn't you mongoloid, its definitely being argued for by nearly every relevant scientist in the world
>>
>>10730505
>>10730548
I'm trying to give you morons the perspective of the average citizen. You complain about people over using their vehicles yet most people have no choice because they need to use it to survive and still have time to spend with families and friends. All you do is bitch about what the laymen do but they only do it because they have two choices. Be miserable all day everyday but at least you have not effected the climate lol or fucking take shortcuts because you only have one life. Sorry but I am not biking 50 minutes everyday to work or riding a bus for 50 minutes when I can drive 15 minutes. If you don't like that then advocate for remote work or some shit I don't know. Or make better public transport that only takes 20 minutes not 50.
>>
>>10726956
>>10732814
>Sorry but I am not biking 50 minutes everyday to work or riding a bus for 50 minutes when I can drive 15 minutes.
Greasy 200lb American hands wrote this
>>
why do people ignore fall for the anti-climate change agenda which is clearly being funded by oil companies?
>>
>>10718385
because they are conformists
>>
>>10718422
>The goal of laymen should be to figure out who the experts are and what the expert opinion is
...based on what criteria, friend?
>>
>>10721264
That's not "laymen", that's /pol/.
>>
>>10718385
Why do people who feign good faith skepticism over extremely well established science that there are many solid lines of evidence for feel compelled to make new threads where they ask ill-posed questions that fool no one who understands concepts like model validation, the law of large numbers, and confidence intervals, rather than making any kind of sincere effort to understand why their comforting delusion might be precisely that?
>>
>>10729326
A plurality of economists, financiers, and other interests also work for corporations promoting and developing products and services they directly benefit from and yet all bow before the mighty "free market" is the accepted mantra. Tell me again why conflict of interest should only be raised for climate change? Might it be that disinformation as a product of conflicting agendas goes both ways?
>>
>>10732814
> two choices.
But they have more than two choices you ingrate.
>Sorry but I am not biking 50 minutes everyday to work or riding a bus for 50 minutes when I can drive 15 minutes
Oh youre an entitled boomer who would rather see everything go down in flames than be mildly inconvenienced.
>Or make better public transport that only takes 20 minutes not 50.
Infrastructure costs a lot of money, money you would get from taxation except taxation is another topic idiots wont broach.
>I'm trying to give you morons the perspective of the average citizen.
Literally the entire point is that the perspective of the average human on this planet needs to
radically change if we want to survive in anything approaching our current societal form.
>>
>>10718385
You've got me. Every single GCM based on anthropogenic global warming theory is trending too high in its predictions. The Faithful try to hide this by creating graphs with massive margins of error for the models and claiming that the observation line falling out the bottom still "proves" the most dire AGW predictions which would require that observation line to be punching out the top. They also cherry pick ground data and exclude far more accurate satellite data so they can nudge that line up a little higher, lest someone ask why the models aren't deemed to be falsified the moment it drops out the bottom.

Observation trumps theory. Observation always trumps theory. If you don't believe that then you're not a scientist regardless of your "specialty."

It's pretty clear at this point that alarmist attitudes over AGW were ill founded. The climate is not as sensitive to CO2 forcing as originally believed. Total forcing for a doubling of preindustrial CO2 levels will be at or below the bottom of the IPCC's predictions. There's very little to worry about in that scenario and the costs of trying to mitigate the warming is vastly higher than the cost of simply adapting to it.

And don't even get me started on the "scientists" who "specialize" in "climate studies" yet confuse weather for climate. All while failing to look back over even 30 years of weather observations. It doesn't matter WHAT today's weather does, it's proof positive of CLIMATE CHANGE. Even if it's no where near the extremes of past records.

AGW theory, aka "climate change", has become a religion. And you dare not question any claim or proclamation of the AGW faithful lest you be slapped over the head with SCIENCE!, EXPERTS!, and SPECIALTIES!
>>
>>10734633
>Every single GCM based on anthropogenic global warming theory
That's a big [citation needed] from me
>>
>>10734633
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_management
This will help you become a further reaching multi step thinker.
>>
>>10734676
Especially considering every model that doesn't include anthropogenic effects give results incorrect to a ludicrous degree.
>>
>>10734516
>over an hour of extra time spent at work everyday is a mild inconvenience
Also you are pretty naive. The entire global economy relies on cars/planes/oil. You also can't have everyone who used to drive to work suddenly flood public transit. That is not how any of this shit works. You need time, money, and patience to change all of that. If you think we have none of that then you may as well just give up and die. Because guess what the fact that you bike to work and recycle is having a negligible effect on anything. You could die and it would barely effect climate change.
>>
>>10733674
Someone without a full time job wrote this.
>>
>>10734676
Here's one of many graphs demonstrating this.

>>10734756
Anthropogenic effects are certainly real and a model which excludes them would likely trend far too low.

But they are not as pronounced as believed. It pisses me off when The Faithful post one of their charts...derived from data like that which I'm posting...which has a big gray band 0.6C wide at 2020. Extrapolated out to 2100 what will happen at the BOTTOM of that band is vastly different from what will happen at the TOP. Yet they'll cling to their garden of Eden/original sin like narrative of global doom...exaggerated even if observation was tracking the highest predictions...because the observation line is still barely within the band at the bottom. (If you go with sat/balloon data it's basically breaking below it.)

The other thing that pisses me off is when someone reads a possible climate change effect of a WORST CASE scenario in year 2100 and immediately thinks it applies to the weather event they think was odd yesterday. Humans honestly believe that weather which does not match what they want is odd and proof that something is wrong. Humans also tend to forget what happened even 5 years go. It's why we used to sacrifice virgins to volcanoes.

tl;dr - of course there is an anthropogenic CO2 effect. Fortunately OBSERVATION is proving THEORY wrong and the effect will be less pronounced than feared.
>>
>>10734688
1999
>WE ARE CERTAIN GLOBAL WARMING IS GOING TO KILL US!
2019
>THE FACT THAT WE WERE WRONG ONLY MEANS THERE'S UNCERTAINTY WHICH MEANS DRASTIC STEPS ARE NEEDED EVEN MORE
Go find a church or a cult.
>>
>>10735657
Oh hey look someone who claims to be an intelligent skeptic using a graph that compares models which are predicting global average temp to troposphere only data. Gee I wonder why.
>>
>>10735696
tropical mid troposphere observations only so it's an even bigger case of cherrypicking.
>>
>>10734516
>Oh youre an entitled boomer who would rather see everything go down in flames than be mildly inconvenienced.
And there's the third thing that pisses me off when it comes to discussions of climate change: suggestions about how we can fight climate change which are utterly and completely ignorant about the realities involved and are therefore off by an order of magnitude or more.

Let us assume that the IPCC's worst case scenario will come to pass. Let us also assume that the entire globe has decided to "do something" about climate change. Every nation and people and religion all on board.

You can take your fuel efficient cars, your bicycles, and your city planning and choke on them. Nothing short of getting the ENTIRE GLOBE on fission power and electric vehicles within about 25-30 years will make a real difference in the warming curve. That would come at a cost of trillions of dollars per year and would involve handing state actors like Iran full access to reactors that could be used to make weapons. Since industrializing nations can't pay for this figure about a third of your current take home pay or more going to this every year for the next 30 years.

You ready for that? Because driving a Prius on today's grid while buying local produce and tweeting about loving SCIENCE! isn't going to shift the warming curve by even a day. You have zero clue of the scale of the numbers involved if you believe anything presented so far, including Kyoto and the Paris Agreement, would have an observable effect on warming. Or if you believe actually getting off carbon would only be a 'mild inconvenience.' I've run the numbers and plotted the graphs. Every idea politicians are willing to float is equivalent to shooting a BB gun at a hurricane.

Fortunately observation shows climate sensitivity is not as high as we feared and there's more time. Because otherwise we would be SOL.
>>
>variables tweaked for the desired outcome
Now that's a very serious accusation.
>>
>>10735696
>picking the urban heat island ground data set over UHI resistant column measurements of the troposphere
>believing that predictions/observations only matter if they're made within 10ft of the surface
>using a massively wide prediction range when that sleight of hand was JUST DISCUSSED in this thread
>accusing someone else of cherry picking data
Go find a cult, true believer.
>>
>>10735712
You are correct that government action is the only way to actually make a dent in emissions. You're incorrect on other things. Net zero emissions by 2050 will limit warming to ~2C which would be a best case scenario, but doing nothing puts us at closer to 5C by 2100.
Significant government action in the form of a carbon tax etc, more aggressive tax credits for EVs renewables etc can shift us into the 2.5-3C range by 2100 without causing significant economic damage which wont be catastrophic. As for climate sensitivity being lower you'll need to provide a citation.
>>
>>10735731
>cleaning data is cherrypicking
Adjusting for all these variables to get an accurate measurement while keeping track of uncertainties is like a statistical miracle. Climatologists are literal geniuses and then you go and say they're lying.
>>
>>10735731
>comparing a model which predicts blended land/sea temperatures to a land/sea observational dataset across the entire planet is cherry picking
>yet comparing land/sea models to one very specific temperature set for one range of latitude which the models aren't even attempting to predict is valid.
You clearly have brain damage.
and the average of models is what's important as it's the most likely temp range. you'll notice it's pretty much spot on with observations.
>>
>>10718489
Thank you
>>
>>10718385
>>
>Republicans: "The people who run the economy know what they're doing. We should trust them and let them run it the way they see fit."
>The people who run the economy: "We need to retool the economy to deal with global warming."
>Republicans: "FAKE NEWS!!!"
>>
>>10735205
Hows that strawman working out for you? 2 lines down I address the fact that actually doing something about it would require taxation.
>>10735712
The point of biking to work is not because it alone is the solution, the point is to promote a paradigm shift to better thinking because shocker legislation is passed only when the electorate forms a general consensus.

>handing state actors like Iran full access to reactors that could be used to make weapons.
Dont bring up points you have zero fucking clue about. Basic education in nuclear science combined with the fact the internet exists makes this point moot.

For future reference when in an argument with someone. Telling them they have no idea what they are talking about then claiming you do without any citation makes you look retarded.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.