/sci/ - Science & Math

>>>/pol/

>>11113384
maybe we should just kill all of the climate scientists
they're all nazis, so morally it isn't a problem

Carbon taxes are massively regressive. Any attempt to remove the burdens from the working and middle classes. Would just result in capital flight. As businesses and upper classes relocate themselves on paper to tax havens. Resulting in Exit and Rake Back Taxes.

>>11115628
carbon taxes have been proven to work so well that companies in Australia begged for them to be reinstated after the conservatives got rid of them.

https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/03/04/ground-measurements-dont-implicate-co2-climate-scientists-are-using-the-wrong-data-sets-for-their-models/

>>11113384
Most of the emails concerned technical and mundane aspects of climate research, such as data analysis and details of scientific conferences.[28] The controversy has focused on a small number of emails[28] with "climate sceptic" websites picking out particular phrases, such as one in which Kevin Trenberth said, "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t".[19] This was actually part of a discussion on the need for better monitoring of the energy flows involved in short-term climate variability,[29] but was grossly mischaracterised by critics.[30][31]

Many commentators quoted one email in which Phil Jones said that he had used "Mike's Nature trick" in a 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization "to hide the decline" in proxy temperatures derived from tree-ring analyses when measured temperatures were actually rising. This "decline" referred to the well-discussed tree-ring divergence problem, but these two phrases were taken out of context by global warming sceptics as though they referred to some decline in measured global temperatures, even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high.[31] John Tierney, writing in The New York Times in November 2009, said that the claims by sceptics of "hoax" or "fraud" were incorrect, but that the graph on the cover of a report for policy makers and journalists did not show these non-experts where proxy measurements changed to measured temperatures.[32] The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in this context "trick" was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion.[33][34] The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and that no one was hiding or concealing them.[35]

>>11115714
https://notrickszone.com/climategate-2-0/

>>11115696
They Liberals got rid if the carbon tax.

It gave tax cuts to the working and middle class to offset rising prices. Also gave money to the fossil fuel producers. Created a carbon credit selling scheme for farmers.

>>11115725
>a list of random out of context quotes, hundreds of which aren't even "incriminating" even outside of context
climate change denial is pathetic, go ahead, post another link

>>11115750
https://climateaudit.org/2011/02/23/new-light-on-delete-any-emails/

>>11113384
climate scientists know about as much as regular assholes about whether or not carbon taxes will work or not - or at least any climate scientist that focuses on climate science does.

carbon taxes are being pushed by economists and politicians as the only plausible "solution", because any other solution would be massively disruptive to the bottom line of the people from whom they get their funding - the finance and construction industries along with many large corporations that rely on population growth to pad their profits.

>>11115768
Warmcunts BTFO.

>>11113384
>>11114271

2

3

>>11117537
Warmshits absolutely BTFO

>>11113384

It's not the scientists that fabricate the data, it's the media. They're the ones creating a climate of fear totally out of proportion to the actual threat. I've gone through the IPCC reports and they say that things will probably get mildly worse in various ways over a long time period.

The media reports complete nonsense, terrorizing millions of children too young to realize that they always lie.

>>11117618
What's the solution?

>>11117537
The dude really wasn't a founder, he was probably one of their first members.

>>11115768
>>11117507
>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/03/wahl-to-wahl-coverage/

might be the most pathetic attempt at grasping at straws I've ever seen. I can't even imagine what it must feel like to hold such irrational beliefs you're incapable of defending. Getting BTFO at every turn must really hurt.

>>11117537
>Patrick Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated this characterization. Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace. Phil Cote, Irving Stowe, and Jim Bohlen founded Greenpeace in 1970. Patrick Moore applied for a berth on the Phyllis Cormack in March, 1971 after the organization had already been in existence for a year. A copy of his application letter and Greenpeace’s response are available here (PDF).

>AND FIRST MEMBERS.

>>11117530
>https://polarbearsinternational.org/research/research-qa/are-polar-bear-populations-increasing-in-fact-booming/

>>11117660

People developing a sense of perspective and critical thinking. Impossible.

Media organizations being forced to represent the truth, not create fear. Impractical.

The masses of the people eventually realizing that the media is lying to them and choosing to ignore climate change as an issue entirely, right as the damage starts to become serious. Inevitable.

>>11118726
according to the UN's own models (ipcc) the economic cost of the cap and trade system is nearly equal to the economic damage of climate change itself

https://scotthorton.org/interviews/6-14-19-bob-murphy-on-the-economics-of-climate-change/

>>11118836
how about you cite the actual parts of the report that say that rather than some shitty podcast no one gives a fuck about?

Shill thread

>>11118836
Those aren't UN models, buddy. They are developed independently by research groups. They receive no UN funding, or a mandate. They happen to be cited in IPCC ARs because they are part of CMIPs and thus allow for quick aggregation.

>>11113384
WooWOoOooW
REally changed my mind

do we have an official /sci/ position about climate change being man-induced as claimed by the poor little Asperger puppet?

>>11118836
No problem, then.

>>11118970
Why bother? Read the GCP paper of the current year, there's your official position.
Do we need an official position on the renormalizability of Yang-Mills theories? Do we need an official position on the equation of state of compact stars?

>>11119011
>Do we need an official position on the renormalizability of Yang-Mills theories? Do we need an official position on the equation of state of compact stars?
is this a NO?

>>11115628
>capital flight.
God damnit I hate this meme. Let them flight, take their capital to some 3rd world island nation, it might do some good there. Protip: they won't.

>>11115696
Literal proof that they are a racket to redistribute wealth from the poor to the provileged. A company begging to be taxed is suspect as fuck.

>>11113384
Imagine for a moment if you are, say, CEO of General Electric, and you’ve developed a new kind of windmill. You order the science teams to look into why your windmill is needed, telling them it can save the world.
They regretfully inform you that of the existing 100 or so studies on the subject, it’s unanimous, your windmill is a net negative for the environment and also the sky isn’t falling and humans can’t control the global climate.
In your infinite wisdom and with your generated at will Monopoly money federal reserve notes you decide to create a new kind of scientist, a “climate scientist.”
You invest into all the leading universities in the US and the world, giving them tens to hundreds of millions to train your future scientist employees, who’s job it is to publish 10,000 studies in your favor. University chairs everywhere around happily applaud and agree,
>thank you for that 300 million. *big smile.*
Years pass:
>99.9% of “climate scientists” agree, it’s a consensus.
The guys with the most Monopoly money tell us what science says and can and have through all history controlled it.

>>11119352
Cool fantasy, do you have a single fact to back that up? Or are you just another useful idiot regurgitating what he's been told to think? If the entirety of the field is a lie it should be quite easy to demonstrate.

>>11119363
No one told me to think of that anon, it was me asking you to think of it. Cognitive dissonance is powerful so you reacted with a hiss and foam at the mouth.

>>11119363
If you claim I plagiarized that show a first instance.

>>11119188
nope it will just be middle class paying for it

take note that a million dollars is till middle class because of inflation

>>11119352
remember that elites own all the patents on solar and battery tech and even kite energy and tidal energy

>>11119379
It will certainly being the middle class which ends up paying for all the property damage from rising sea levels as well as the inevitable collapse of agriculture, you'll be eating bugs in 50 years when Nebraska is a wasteland because you listened to the oil shills, instead of planning for the future. The oil oligarchs will be charging you to capture the carbon they put into the atmosphere, laughing as they eat their 1000$ a pound steak.

>>11119370
>>11119379
It's the same utterly idiotic fantasy propagated by all the oil shills, who know they can't argue against the science. that you think it's original in any way is hilarious.

>>11119510
>can’t cite prior example
>doesn’t know “oil” funds green energy and has done so for 40 years

>>11119517
Go in literally any climate bait thread you fucking newfag unless it's been you posting the same shit in every thread for 4 years.

>>11119517
Big oil has small investments in renewables, it accounts for a tiny fraction of a % of their revenue, and they own a pathetic fraction of the market. Please at least do your homework before you spout this utterly idiotic shit.

>>11119532
Literal delusion.

>>11119538
lurk moar newfag

>>11119548
Wow anon you changed my mind!

>>11119554
I thought we already established you don't have a single fact to back up your absurd fantasies, that you're an insufferable newfag is just icing on the cake.

>>11119536
ExxonMobil (NYSE:XOM), Royal Dutch Shell (NYSE:RDS-A) (NYSE:RDS-B), Chevron (NYSE:CVX), BP (NYSE:BP), and Total SA (NYSE:TOT):
>invested 44.6 Billion with a B into renewables.
>they have no interest said the useful idiot.

>>11119560
>keeps claiming to be oldfag by exclusion.
Kek

>>11119563
That’s only in the last 12 months. They invested way more.

>>11119536
How many scientists salaries can I pay with 40 billion?

>>11119576
A much different question than how many blatant lies can you publish, all while suppressing anyone from publishing the very obvious truth, to do that you'd need to buy virtually every university and publisher on the planet. 40Bn is barely enough to by a single university. You'll need more money.

>>11119581
>but every university
Prove that is a requirement. They don’t need to own the university just donate to it regularly, which they provably do and have done specifically in regards to climate change since Stanford in the 90s.

>>11119581
It’s 40billion every 12 months. Yearly. Annually.

>>11119581
>my argument is that propaganda isn’t real or effective as a counter to “big oil invests 40 billion a year into it.”
Ok you are a retard then.

>>11119581
Quite a lot if you own MSNBC; which General Electric does.

>>11115628
>>11119340
The goal with carbon taxes has never been to make life easier for poor people.
Its literally using market forces to drive down emissions, which we know work. Market forces is what drives our modern society. But somehow people expect it to fix every problem you have in society. If it impacts poor people then there are other ways to help them.

>>11115703
This is really really stupid. Anyone with passing knowledge in atmospheric physics knows that the greenhouse effect is most important at the top of the atmosphere, where heat is being radiated into space. Heat at ground level is being transfered primarily by convection, not radiation. So comparing the effect of CO2 and H2O at ground level is a huge strawman. Global warming is primarily caused by the decrease in heat lost at the top of the atmosphere due to the increase in the greenhouse effect from CO2 emissions. This increases the heat being moved around at ground level as well as other parts of the atmosphere.

>>11119779
t. pseudo scientist

>>11119733
>Its literally using market forces to drive down emissions

>let's use markets to control the free market

sounds like a smart idea? check history fgt

>>11119788
>t. mutt

>>11119505
>you'll be eating bugs in 50 years when Nebraska is a wasteland
wanna bet on it?

NO MATTER WHAT YOU FUCKING DENIERS SAY YOU CANNOT FUCKING PROVE THAT PRO INTERVENTION CLIMATE SCIENTISTS HAVE EVER LIED OR EXAGGERATED THEIR DATA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA FUCKING DENIERS BTFO

I don't think you can miss a point harder than you.

Taxation and law is how we regulate and control markets. There are no "free" markets on earth today, this is nothing new or radical, its simply a fact in modern economics. What I am more interested in with carbontax policies however is the positive incentives that are created, these are far more powerful, and create a market around driving emissions down.

And explain how this is in anyway related to Stalin? Unless you want to argue that any taxation leads to socialism and mas starvation?

>>11119835
>There are no "free" markets on earth today
You can't pay artists to make music in a free manner? For example? Markets for drugs survive even in prisons.

>What I am more interested in with carbontax policies however is the positive incentives that are created

You're naive for thinking you, as a mere mortal, can control markets.. it leads to all sorts of side effect.. see soviet union and price controls in venezuela. What is stopping someone from using money to make the carbon taxes in a way that benefits them?

Why is Qatar using their state media, Al Jazeera, to promote climate alarmism when they have the 10th largest oil reserves? Could it be that carbon taxes would actually value their oil more as they would surely get permits to sell it?

https://mises.org/library/man-economy-and-state-power-and-market/html/c/272

do you even know how cap and trade works??? Are you aware the scheme was invented by the founder of ENRON??!?!

https://youtu.be/pA6FSy6EKrM

Are you aware that based on the IPCC models it will cost roughly the same amount to intervene in the market as the damages from climate change? Ie like a few trillion a year when the global GDP is 70 trillion.

>>11119860
>Why is Qatar using their state media, Al Jazeera, to promote climate alarmism when they have the 10th largest oil reserves? Could it be that carbon taxes would actually value their oil more as they would surely get permits to sell it?
because it's the truth, and they have more to lose from climate change than they stand to gain.


>do you even know how cap and trade works??? Are you aware the scheme was invented by the founder of ENRON??!?!
and?

>Are you aware that based on the IPCC models it will cost roughly the same amount to intervene in the market as the damages from climate change? Ie like a few trillion a year when the global GDP is 70 trillion.
citation please

>>11119605
I didn't realize MSNBC was a major publisher of atmospheric science papers. The more you know.

>>11119594
a drop in the bucket compared to the absolutely global stranglehold on the truth your conspiracy would require. If what you said was true, there would be climate scientists being dissapeared every week as they discovered the truth.

>>11119897
>because it's the truth

Oh yeah the fucking crown prince of Qatar is just informing you about climate change out of the goodness of his heart and he REALLY CARES about scientific ethical integrity!!!!

>they have more to lose from climate change than they stand to gain

By gain if you mean artificially inflating the price of their oil reserves through a cap and trade scheme then YES.

>and?
It's classic repackaging of literally TOXIC ASSETS just like fucking sub prime mortgages. Fucking LOL go ask /biz/ about it.

>citation please

Look up Robert Murphy. >>11118836

I don't have time but he is reputable and has been engaging in this debate using the UN's own numbers for the better part of a decade.

>>11119860
>You can't pay artists to make music in a free manner?
Is it really worth reading the rest of your comment when you dont seem to know what a free market even is.

>You're naive for thinking you, as a mere mortal, can control markets..
We have carbontax policies today that are effective in reducing emissions. It doesn't turn Countries into the Soviet Union or Venuzuela.

>https://youtu.be/pA6FSy6EKrM
People cheating the system is not an argument against it. Also, nice Youtube video man..

>>11119908
the cost of climate change is only a few trillion a year so we're within 2 orders of magnitude and if every oil company and oil prince is doing then... what are we all wasting our money on again?

>>11119563
>>11119571
>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X19300574#fig5
meanwhile back in the real world investment is tiny compared to their oil based revenue, you claim AGW is a global conspiracy created by big oil to sell solar panels, but they aren't even remotely competitive in the renewable sector.
>https://energyacuity.com/blog/top-10-renewable-energy-companies/

>>11119918
>Oh yeah the fucking crown prince of Qatar is just informing you about climate change out of the goodness of his heart and he REALLY CARES about scientific ethical integrity!!!!
Or maybe because the effects of global warming will be quite severe in such geographic positions? Contrast that with Russia or Norway where people are more likely to push denialistic narrative (even though they are still way below mutts).

>>11119919
>you dont seem to know what a free market even is.
You can't freely give someone money to make a piece of artwork? You cant go out and buy bitcoin and then transfer that to an artist???

>that are effective in reducing emissions
Apparently not considering youre still screeching and our governments are literally in 20 trillion dollars of debt and they have negative interest rates in many places and are afraid to let them go up naturally because they know it will implode the economy and national currencies. If you think the keynesianism has worked then you are just misinformed. Have fun losing any savings you might have.


>People cheating the system is not an argument against it
Like violently enforced financial monopolies (fed CFR etc) THEY ARE DESIGNED TO BE CHEATED SO THAT CREATES A MONOPOLY FOR THEIR CRONIES.

https://moneyandmarkets.com/peter-schiff-dollar-collapsing/

https://www.newsmax.com/Finance/streettalk/peter-schiff-economic-collapse-dollar/2018/10/26/id/888166/

>>11119918
>Oh yeah the fucking crown prince of Qatar is just informing you about climate change out of the goodness of his heart and he REALLY CARES about scientific ethical integrity!!!!

turns out owning a media company is pointless if you destroy your integrity publishing such obvious lies that can be refuted so easily.

>By gain if you mean artificially inflating the price of their oil reserves through a cap and trade scheme then YES.
by reducing demand? you failed economics didn't you? Quatar is a coasted equatorial nation, it's already incredibly hot, damage from climate change could render them an inhospitable wasteland.

>Robert Murphy
I'm not wasting my time on some shitty podcast by a literal who, cite in the report the projected costs compared to expense of an energy transition.

>>11119931
>because the effects of global warming will be quite severe in such geographic positions

you think they dont have the resources to build sea walls and air conditioning in places as rich as Dubai??!?!?

>>11119944
>DUDE JUST WALL THE ENTIRE COAST AND AIR CONDITION THE ENTIRE COUNTRY LOL
are you fucking 12? do you have any idea how much that would cost?

Another climate bait thread where denialist shills, do everything in their power to avoid discussing science and instead make up insane conspiracy theories with 0 evidence. Such a waste of time.

>>11119944
Yes. Btw Dubai is not part of Qatar, it belongs to UAE.

>>11119933
>You can't freely give someone money to make a piece of artwork? You cant go out and buy bitcoin and then transfer that to an artist???
A transaction is not a market. Jesus..

>Apparently not considering youre still screeching and our governments are literally in 20 trillion dollars of debt and they have negative interest rates in many places and are afraid to let them go up naturally because they know it will implode the economy and national currencies. If you think the keynesianism has worked then you are just misinformed. Have fun losing any savings you might have.

How is any of this relevant to the actual discussion?

>https://moneyandmarkets.com/peter-schiff-dollar-collapsing/
Some fringe opinion.. Okay I guess. Where do you find these people?

>>11119955
implying that trailer trash knows how to read a map

>>11119941
>such obvious lies that can be refuted so easily.
Works for CNN/ABC/MSNBC.. they fucking murdered Epstein infront of everyone so i doubt they would care about JOURNALISTIC INTEGRITY

>by reducing demand?

BAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAA YOU THINK CARBON TAXES REDUCE DEMAND??!?!?!?!??!?!?!??!??!?!?!?!?!??!

Hmmm what would happen if the state severely limited the production and sale of hydrocarbons to only select established permit holders like the Saudis, Emerates, Qatar, Kuwait, Bp, Shell, and Exxon?!? HMMMMMMMMMM would people just magically not want oil anymore?!?!??!?!?!?! Did you even fucking watch the video about how the cap and trade system works??

They literally provided room in the plan for exceptions and guess who will get them? They have limited fucking oil and they want the BEST PRICE for it. You are a fucking idiot if you think those rich motherfuckers give a fucking shit about "their people" and they would rather just build a new fucking palace and let "their people" fucking burn ahahahha.

>I'm not wasting my time on some shitty podcast by a literal who

THEN FUCKING READ HIS ARTICLES YOU DUMB FUCK... I DONT HAVE TIME SO YOU FUCKING DO THE FUCKING GOOGLING I GAVE YOU A NAME YOU FUCKING DUMB ASS REDDITOR


WOULD DUBAI BE BUILDING NEW FUCKING ARTIFICIAL ISLANDS IF THEY WERE WORRIED ABOUT RISING SEA LEVELS??????

>>11119955
>>11119959
NO FUCKING SHIT BUT THEY ARE BOTH RICH AS FUCK AND POSSES THE RESOURCES TO BUILD SEA WALLS YOU FUCKING NIGGER EAT BUGS

>>11119957
>A transaction is not a market. Jesus..

WELL THERE ARE PARTS OF OUR MARKET THAT ARE RELATIVELY FREE NO????

>How is any of this relevant to the actual discussion?

BECAUSE IT'S ALL CAUSED BY *****INTERVENTION IN THE MARKET*****

>Some fringe opinion

HE FUCKING PREDICTED 2008 AND YOU THINK THAT CNBC HAS AN INCENTIVE FOR TELLING YOU THE TRUTH ABOUT YOUR SHITTY 401K!!??!?!

>>11119947
WHY DO THEY HAVE PLANS TO BUILD MORE ISLANDS AT SEA LEVEL THEN???????

>>11119967
>would people just magically not want oil anymore
Yes, that´s how market works you mentally deranged american.

>>11119970
>dude just build seawalls
at up to 2000$ per lineal foot, for over 350 miles of coast? you're clearly fucking braindead, and that's only one factor in climate change.

>>11119980
This, renewables are already destroying conventional energy in terms of cost. A carbon tax would only accelerate how quickly fossil fuels are completely replaced.

>>11119996

>>11119978
>throwing a lot of rocks and sand is the same as pumping heat out of a whole country

>>11119976
You angry?

>WELL THERE ARE PARTS OF OUR MARKET THAT ARE RELATIVELY FREE NO????
Yes, and take a second to think about this before you answer. Is 'something that is part of a market' a market? You see the problem now? And Is it a counter to my original claim? Remember, take a second to think this over.

>BECAUSE IT'S ALL CAUSED BY *****INTERVENTION IN THE MARKET*****
Oh wow, cool man. I guess all our problems are solved by more freedom. Never heard this before.

>HE FUCKING PREDICTED 2008 AND YOU THINK THAT CNBC HAS AN INCENTIVE FOR TELLING YOU THE TRUTH ABOUT YOUR SHITTY 401K!!??!?!
I dont see how his opinion is relevant to anything. And no, I don't take him seriously either.

>>11119928
>compared to
40 billion a year is more than us needed to get elected president.

>>11119928
Why would they spend more than they need to? They spend 40 billion on it annually and that’s enough to create a false consensus on any issue.

It's really pathetic how many people have been manipulated by corporate propaganda into honestly believing that supporting laws that let corporations do whatever they want and destroy the planet to save a few pennies is actually somehow about helping themselves. It's honestly kind of depressing how easily people are duped into thinking the good of massive conglomerates is their own good. Remember kids, propaganda does work. With enough money, you can convince somebody to ignore scientists and experts and instead trust some guy with an unrelated humanities degree on the TV.

>>11120013
>>11120017
you're confused, we're talking purely about investments into the renewable energy sector, not imaginary conspiracies about big oil owning every university on the planet, the facts are, big oil is not competitive in the renewable sector. Your conspiracies are nonsense.

>>11113384
>You Can't!
Ok, but why should I pay carbon tax exactly?

>>11120056
>imaginary conspiracies
The 40 billion per year isn’t an imagined thing, it’s actually an understatement.
You never answered my question:
How many scientists can I hire with 40 billion a year?

>>11120018
Green energy is corporate you dumb bug eater.

The current Boomer stance on climate change is to fight tooth and nail to first deny it exists, then to say it isn't that bad, then to claim it isn't human caused, etc.
The goal of this is to not have to pay for their mistakes, like with all things Boomer, by dying before the "check comes"
Boomers are literally dine and dash niggers

>>11120181
Hold on bug breath, it's the boomers who got this death cult scam into public consciousness in the first place.

>>11119993
>at up to 2000$ per lineal foot, for over 350 miles of coast?

which sea wall and what government inflated nasa fucking crony socialist contract and is that taking into account economies of scale?

and good job dubai could easily afford 3.5 billion dollars

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_(archipelago)

>The World's overall development costs were estimated at $13 billion CAD in 2005.

>>11120181
>evolving your opinions is bad
>you should double down on the first knee jerk radical idea you had

typical libtard logic

>>11120181
also you are misunderstanding people when they argue at you from multiple levels

you can use your own numbers and establish carbon cap and trade is more expensive than the damages from climate change

or you can argue the numbers.. they are two separate arguments and you are building a strawman out of the fact you can't differentiate them

>>11119788
Here are two curves from Modtran showing the energy output from 70km (top of green area) and 0 km (top of red area). The difference between these curves is the decrease in energy leaving space due to the greenhouse effect. By only showing the latter curve, your source says nothing about the greenhouse effect.

>>11119788
Here are two curves from Modtran showing the energy output from 70km (top of green area) and 0 km (top of red area). The difference between these curves is the decrease in energy leaving space due to the greenhouse effect. By only showing the latter curve, your source says nothing about the greenhouse effect

>>11120181
>t. GE/Google/MSNBC/Big Oil alliance shill.

>>11120315
What a joke. I can show how water vapor increases the temp in a greenhouse but your graph is an unsubstantiated claim of causation instead.

>>11120315
>pump earth’s atmospheric (total not even just anthro) co2 into greenhouse
>no temp change

>pump water vapor into greenhouse
>huge obvious temp change

>>11120337
Ah so when >>11115703 uses Modtran it's OK, but when I use it's not OK.

>>11120353
>>pump earth’s atmospheric (total not even just anthro) co2 into greenhouse
>no temp change
>pump water vapor into greenhouse
>huge obvious temp change
Via what mechanism?

Also you understand that greenhouses work by preventing hot air from escaping, not via the greenhouse effect right?

>>11120139
You can't even buy Harvard, you NEED to either silence or murder virtually every single climate scientist and physicist on the planet to achieve the level of consensus we're dealing with. The fact you think you can achieve this with 40bn is beyond childlike nativity

>>11120507
He doesn't understand shit, he's comparing a 3 ft gas column to a fucking 20km one.

>>11120553
>achieve the level of consensus we're dealing with
Can you state what the "consensus" actually is?

>>11120573
human activity is entirely responsible for increases in atmospheric CO2. This slows the rate at which heat escapes into space. The climate will experience a increase in global average temperature of approximately 3C for a doubling of CO2.

>>11120606
Can you provide a source for this "consensus"?

>human activity is entirely responsible for increases in atmospheric CO2
We contribute to 4% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere, if we're responsible for all of the increase it would require the other 96% of contributions to remain the same.
>This slows the rate at which heat escapes into space
By how much exactly? Does CO2 not also have a cooling effect?
>The climate will experience a increase in global average temperature of approximately 3C for a doubling of CO2
Is this a fact or a prediction?

>>11120668
>We contribute to 4% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere
Huh? There was 0,3% before industrial revolution and there is 0,4% now. Seems like human activity increased it by at least 30%.

>>11120683
So only humans can increase the amount of CO2 in the air? What about termites, rotting plants, volcanoes?

>>11119967
lol obviously dubai is run by a bunch of bloated fucking primitive CONSUUUUUUUUUUMERS
those people cant think a month into the future let alone 50 years, by which time they'll be whining at the dutch and european engineering firms that sold them that sinking lemon

SO ARE YOU GUYS ADMITTING THAT PRO CARBON TAX CLIMATE SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER LIED EVER?!!??!?!?!

THAT YOU WILL CONCEDE RIGHT????

>>11120683
>seems like
Very non scientific basis for a conclusion. For all we know it will fluctuate by .1 every century.

>>11120727
are you saying Qatar is radically different than Dubai and they don't share interests or propaganda plans???

Because Al Jazeera, Qatari Royal State Media, actively pumps global warming alarmism???

Why do you think there is a dichotomy? I'd like to hear your opinion?

>>11120731
No, mega energy, oil, and tech all lie and the vast majority of “scientists” are just “lobbyists” with credentials instead. Even the effort to claim they “never lied” is dishonest.

>>11120732
Sorry, ami. There´s not much room for a debate.

>>11120740
then show me where their models are off.. it shouldn't be hard if the conspiracy is as vast as you claim?

>>11120738
Qatar and Dubai are enemies. IIRC they sanction each other.

>>11120181
nice job building a strawman of me and generalizing when less than a year ago i was a full retard leftist that believed the alarmist CONSPIRACY

good job being a typical redditor and only believing the most polarized simple small brain side of an argument

>>11120755

>>11120757
they're not overt enemies but they have a conflict when it comes to iran

most of the time they are on good terms though and you would think they would share common propaganda narratives when it comes to climate change because they have the exact same fucking economic situation when it comes to their oil reserves

here is a pro government emirates news agency that spins a similar narrative about climate alarmism, why???

https://www.thenational.ae/uae/environment

you really telling me it's because theyre so "progressive" and they don't have a major OIL value incentive to agree to all those UN agreements and shit?

>>11120773
>activate windows
I´m sure that the graph is from very reliable source.

>>11120773
that looks like hot garbage and i don't believe you even understand what you're looking at

>>11120781
What about the big player in the region, my little redditor?
>https://www.climatechangenews.com/2019/06/27/un-report-1-5c-blocked-climate-talks-saudi-arabia-disputes-science/
>https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/saudi-arabia-ipcc-climate-change-report-removed-un-bonn-a8979201.html
>https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-stands-with-russia-and-saudi-arabia-against-climate-science/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_diplomatic_crisis

there is this but they share the same interest on climate and Al Jazeera is just more well known so it's a more convenient example

part of the conflict is that Qatar funds "moderate rebels" (isis) but so does saudi so it's more WWE shit about iran or something

they are congruent in support climate alarmism though so the fact they agree despite an ongoing rift backs up my claim even more

>>11120755
Show me the successful predictions made by their hypothesis.

>>11120795
it's hot as shit

>>11120783
My SSD drive died recently you prepubescent mongoloid. Stop ignoring the graph.
>>11120784
It shows the model's predictions as compared the averaged raw measured temps taken by balloons and satellites. The predictions are totally wrong, explain it.

>>11120798
>My SSD drive
Don´t tell me a subhuman like you made that graph.

>>11120792
b-b-b-but whaddabout this?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-investments-energy/saudi-arabia-plans-to-launch-carbon-trading-scheme-idUSKBN1X91M1

still think it's not a pyramid scheme????

>RIYADH (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia plans to launch a carbon trading scheme as the G20 member aims to diversify its energy supplies and reduce carbon emissions, the energy minister of the world’s top oil producer said on Wednesday

https://theintercept.com/2019/09/18/saudi-arabia-aramco-oil-climate-change/

Articles like the above one point to saudi denying their role in emissions they've already released which might be a bargaining strategy for getting more CREDITS in the carbon trading scheme or something??


ANDDD at the same time offering an IPO.. hmm

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/nation/story/2019-10-29/saudi-owned-tv-public-offering-for-aramco-coming-next-month

>RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — A long-delayed initial public offering of the state-run oil giant Saudi Aramco will see its shares traded on Riyadh’s stock exchange in December, a Saudi-owned satellite news channel reported Tuesday as the kingdom’s showcase investment forum began

>>11120738
most people only care about climate change until you inform that the "carbon offsets" they buy don't do shit and in actuality actually make things worse

>>11120798
>The predictions are totally wrong,

how do you know?

>>11120801
Stop ignoring the graph you bug munching bitch.

>>11120812
>https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-investments-energy/saudi-arabia-plans-to-launch-carbon-trading-scheme-idUSKBN1X91M1
What about this? It´s just them playing the game, not influencing research or public opinion. I´ve posted an example where they are influencing research.

>ANDDD at the same time offering an IPO.. hmm
Therefore, what? I´m not interested in your emotional redditposting. Just state the point.

>>11120816
THE GRAPH YOU INFURIATING HIPPY COWARD

>>11120831
>It´s just them playing the game

right a game to value their oil as high as possible through cap and trade.. you think there is ANY other game??

>science

BAHAHAHHAhAHAHGAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA (BREETHS IN) JAJAJAJJAJAJAJAJAJJAJAJ xxxxxDDddddd

>Just state the point.

IT'S FUKKIN' SUSPECT YOU FUKKIN' GULLIBLE AUTISTIC BUG EATING NIGGER

>>11120821
Your graph isn´t worthy of attention as it lacks proper sourcing for "ballons" and "sattelites". There´s clear indication that those datasets are mismatched, likely due to heights.

Sorry, blob.

>>11120833
yeah what does it mean and why should i believe you?

>>11120835
>value their oil as high as possible through cap and trade
That´s what OPEC has been doing for decades. And again I´ve posted an actual example of Saudis influencing research, you are just posting about economical scheming.Your little redditbrain is broken, I think you should go back if you can´t handle opposition.

>>11120846
>Saudis influencing research

because it's in their interest to DENY their PAST IMPACT

>you are just posting about economical scheming
>just
>just
>just

JUST FUCKING STFU FAGGOT. Economics DRIVE scientific "consensus" and the saudis ARE OBJECTIVELY PRO CAP AND TRADE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

why do you support a saudi pyramid scheme anon???? maybe you should fucking suck your fucking dick haaha.

>>11120836
>>11120839
It's a comparison between MSU satellite and weather balloon temperature measurements and 73 CMIP climate models. The models project far too much warming, this is well known you hippy parasites.

>>11120858
Negative. By blocking the 1.5°C report they are actively undermining international action.
also
>https://www.climatechangenews.com/2013/04/24/saudi-arabia-blocks-climate-change-from-un-poverty-goals/

>>11120883
You don't know that was their explicit goal.. the articles i read said they were refuting past emission claims. They support media that promotes alarmism and are ON BOARD with cap and trade.

And the emirates and qataris are even less subtle about it.

>>11120881
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/comparing-models-to-the-satellite-datasets/

Just go back to your reddit circlejerk already. Goblins like you believe every stupid picture they see without questioning it.

>>11120883
also that graph means fuck all.. american oil is expensive and the saudis can pump it for 4 dollars a barrel

if anything the american frackers have more of a reason to support climate alarmism so that the price of oil remains higher

>>11113384
>name a time that pro carbon tax Climatologists falsified or exaggerated their data?

Their entire foundation/premise was negated by the fact that they dictate what people should do and think, which is not science nor scientific whatsoever. Oh and also by the fact that CO2 has never been empirically shown to cause warming.
Let that sink in for a minute. There is absolutely no proof that CO2 causes warming and yet these jackoffs are so deluded and invested into the psychosis that they pull data out of a hat and somehow believe that making people pay for a gas emission will help anything when other countries around the world are just starting their industrial revolution. Only a politician would come up with such a bullshit tax, oh wait that's exactly where these "scientists" probably got the idea.

>"this independent group of utterly reputable scientists have concluded that there was no evidence of any scientific malpractice"

"this ""independent group"" of adverb positive beancounters concluded that they have no clue how a fire works".

You start the fire, you need this thing called "heat" first and it doesn't come from CO2. In fact if you want to suppress the fire you would grab this thing called a "fire extinguisher", which just so happens to most likely be filled with CO2.

>>11120883
>https://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/09/12/saudi-arabia-warns-un-over-1-5c-climate-study/

look it's a bargaining process and China did something similar in trying to bargain for more credits in the cap and trade scheme

they want cap and trade but want to make sure they will be given priority in who gets to sell their oil

>>11120902
>There is absolutely no proof that CO2 causes warming

how come every scientist disagrees? NO shit the original heat comes from the sun but the C02 keeps it in the atmosphere longer.

>>11120902
you didn't bother reading the thread so people shouldn't bother reading your retarded little rant

(you dont fucking read PERIOD. That's a big part of the reason you're fucking STUPID)

>>11120891
>the articles i read said they were refuting past emission claims
Your lack of reading comprehension isn´t my problem

>ON BOARD
They don´t have much of a choice there. Doesn´t mean that they can´t try to cut the board, or trade bits of it with other people. Also they don´t have anything else going for them but the oil, they need to diversify and they know it. Better example would be US, which is the hotbed of climate denialism and the country with enormous dependance on oil for both domestic economy and imperial power.

>>11120918
True but I don't think they are evil corporate slaves, they legit just don't better. God bless America

>>11120902
>You start the fire, you need this thing called "heat" first and it doesn't come from CO2. In fact if you want to suppress the fire you would grab this thing called a "fire extinguisher", which just so happens to most likely be filled with CO2.
wtf? I don´t believe in photochemistry anymore!1!!1!1!

>>11120918
>>11120918
>Your lack of reading comprehension isn´t my problem


https://theintercept.com/2019/09/18/saudi-arabia-aramco-oil-climate-change/

>SAUDI ARABIA DENIES ITS KEY ROLE IN CLIMATE CHANGE

>“There is no limit to our industry’s potential if we can meet society’s demand for ultra-clean energy,” said Amin Nasser, the chief executive of Aramco, at the World Energy Congress in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, last week. Nasser led Aramco to help found the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative, a splashy new effort to showcase the oil industry’s pledge to achieve “global net zero emissions” in the spirit of meeting the “ambitions set by the Paris Agreement,” the United Nations climate accord.

>Saudi Aramco is preparing to shift away from crude oil and into petrochemicals.

Do you really think that the Saudis wont be selling oil products for the rest of our foreseeable future??? You know they will find ways of slowly selling off there reserves for eternity?

They have a limited reserve of trillions of dollars worth and all the cap and trade agreements will mean is that they can sell as much as year but they will get more money in the long run. Are you DENYING this?

>dependance on oil for both domestic economy and imperial power
They get their imperial power from the banks and those banks are spearheading this UN initiative and they have a whole pyramid scheme, cap and trade, to milk the shit out of it and allow violence against anyone who opposes it.

YOU SUPPORT IMPERIAL VIOLENCE!!!!!! It will be just like swift where they can fuck people over by banning them from using it or if they try to use their own system they will get a nice little regime change dose of "freedom." Glad you support this!

>>11120915
>how come every scientist disagrees?
how come every scientist is now magically an expert on climate? If I become a biologist does that make me a climate scientist to?

>NO shit the original heat comes from the sun but the C02 keeps it in the atmosphere longer

So CO2 does not cause warming like these "scientists" say it does. Did you ever think that cold could be insulated too? Have you ever used a refrigerator?

>>11120917
This entire thread is based on something non scientific, as far as I'm concerned it should be deleted.

>>11120923
>wtf CO2 dissolves in water which is the basis of most chemical bonds

Thank Christ for CO2.

wow Deniers are truly pathetic

they cant even refuel climatologists computer models... how pathetic lol

>>11120974
>circular thinking the post

fucking show us a non garbage graph.. cant be that hard can it?

>>11117524
>>11120773
>Human contribution of CO2 into the atmosphere
>Ignores that natural sinks absorb more CO2 than natural sources emit, while humans don't.

>CO2 lags temperature by 800-2000 years
Of course it does, if orbital eccentricity causes insolation to increase, then warming starts the feedback loop between warming and CO2 evaporating from the oceans. The climate has never had humans dump massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, thus we have never seen CO2 start to increase before temperature, until now! Do you think climatologists don't already know this? Do you not realize that without this feedback loop you cannot explain the Milankovich cycle? No of course not, you have no idea what your idiotic memes are even implying.

>The models are wrong
Actually the data is wrong. Several sources of error were discovered in the satellite techniques since 2009 and they are now much more in line with the instrumental data. To see how well the IPCC is doing I suggest you look at current updates:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/2010-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/

>Ice core samples indicate warm periods long before the Industrial Revolution
And? The problem with global warming is not that it's warm, it's that it's warming very quickly. The rate of warming is unprecedented and the infrastructure and ecosystems we rely on have no time to adapt. Also, you do know that ice cores are proxies for the temperature in a single place, not the global climate right?

And last but not least another fraudulent graph, using flawed, cherrypicked data and not even showing surface temperature.

>>11120972
>https://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/12/08/climate-science-1-5c-erased-un-talks-us-saudis-step/
>Four big oil and gas producers blocked UN climate talks from welcoming the most influential climate science report in years, as a meeting in Poland descended into acrimony on Saturday.

YOU ARE EVIL SATAN INCARNATE111!!1 YOU FLY WITH EPSTEIN AND SACRIFICE ROBOTS JUST TO TOUCH THEIR LITTLE ROBOTIC PENIS11! THE MARK OF CAIN RESTS ON THE FEET OF ABU BAKS BUNNY. EARTH IS HOLLOW, WHY DO YOU DENY THAT1111!!!

>>11120894
>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/comparing-models-to-the-satellite-datasets/
Even with their dumb little changes they still prove that observations don't match the models at all, and that temps are nowhere near as warm as they predict.
>Just go back to your reddit circlejerk already
Reddit is full of your climate death cult, what are you talking about?
>Goblins like you believe every stupid picture they see without questioning it.
Are you claiming the models are correct you stinky delusional vegan?

>>11120974
>This entire thread is based on something non scientific
That's true to some extent. Atmospheric/ocean/climate science is a lot more like engineering in the way that it used whatever works best.

But what do you even know about science anyway? I think you know virtually nothing. Just another psychotic bloated CONSUUUUUUMER rationalizing his next hit like some genetic dead end crack junky in the alley.

>>11120992
>And?
Those ice core samples are wrong too. Deniers conveniently select only those that fit into their narrative. Aggregate studies show different behaviour.

>>11120995
looking pretty fucking good to me

>>11121006
They're not wrong, they're just local.

>>11120795
>crickets

>>11120995
>Even with their dumb little changes they still prove that observations don't match the models at all, and that temps are nowhere near as warm as they predict.
Incorrect. Once you match apples with apples, there´s an agreement.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming

>>11121024
>literally a propaganda website

>>11121028
As opposed to blogs from deranged mutts?

>>11121006
good job the hockey stick is literally the one piece of climate alarmism that can be debunked

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

>>11121101
Nope. Sorry, you failed again. It´s different graph.

>>11120992
>>Ignores that natural sinks absorb more CO2 than natural sources emit, while humans don't.
What on earth does that mean? Absolute drivel.
>The climate has never had humans dump massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, thus we have never seen CO2 start to increase before temperature, until now!
So only humans can "dump" large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere?
>Actually the data is wrong. Several sources of error were discovered in the satellite techniques since 2009 and they are now much more in line with the instrumental data.
How convenient! Instrumental data is much more error prone and has far less coverage than satellites, so isn't that data wrong too? Especially data from the 1880's and early 1900's, what makes you so sure that is accurate enough to be used?
>The rate of warming is unprecedented and the infrastructure and ecosystems we rely on have no time to adapt
But that's horseshit because our infrastructure and ecosystems can already deal with the weather which has much more extremes that constantly change. Cities have gotten warmer and warmer as they've gotten bigger yet ecosystems continue to live.

>>11121116
it's similar af though so it basically counts

and i won the thread because i proved that a climate alarmist lied

>>11121135
If natural sinks fix the natural co2 pollution then they also do the manmade, since man’s contribution is small in comparison to the rest of the earth.

>>11121011
Silly vegan: http://www.realclimate.org/images/christy_trop_new_5yr.png

>>11121140
>it's similar af though so it basically counts
I´m sorry, kiddo, but you failed yet again. That´s not how this stuff works. Subjectively percieved visual similarity means nothing.

>>11121034
Who are the ones with the money? It's always the death cult with the fancy websites.

>>11121145
why are you once again comparing models which predict GLOBAL average temp to only stratospheric temp in the tropics? How do you justify such blatant cherrypicking? Are you a literal shill or have you just lost any and all self respect and are incapable of introspection?

>>11121163
ironic, i would say worshiping the idea of consuming ourselves to death is by definition a death cult. I guess it's just projection.

>>11121101
>New studies using different methods continued to extend the period covered by reconstructions. Ljungqvist's 2,000 year extratropical Northern Hemisphere reconstruction generally agreed well with Mann et al. 2008, though it used different methods and covered a different area.[212] Studies by Christiansen and Ljungqvist investigated previous underestimation of low-frequency variability, and reaffirmed Mann et al.'s conclusions about the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period.[213] as did Ljungqvist et al. 2012 which used a larger network of proxies than previous studies. Marcott et al. 2013 used seafloor and lake bed sediment proxies to reconstruct global temperatures over the past 11,300 years, the last 1,000 years of which confirmed the original MBH99 hockey stick graph.[214]

later research all confirms and collaborates Mann's work. Calling this debunking is the best joke in this entire thread.

>>11121143
Yep, but we seem to forget that humans are also natural. There's no such thing as natural and unnatural CO2 emissions.

>>11121163
Both sides. Normal reserachers have higher overal budget, but earn less as individuals, while the deranged mutts get shitloads of shekels from Koch and Waltons purely for personal use.

>>11121135
>What on earth does that mean? Absolute drivel.
the ocean and land are currently net carbon sinks, it's basic science. Educate yourself.

>So only humans can "dump" large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere?
once in 10 millennia events like basalt floods can and have in the past, but that has nothing to do with current events.

>How convenient! Instrumental data is much more error prone and has far less coverage than satellites, so isn't that data wrong too? Especially data from the 1880's and early 1900's, what makes you so sure that is accurate enough to be used?

older instrumental data, and reconstructions from many different sources across the entire planet all provide similar results within an acceptable margin of error.

>But that's horseshit because our infrastructure and ecosystems can already deal with the weather which has much more extremes that constantly change. Cities have gotten warmer and warmer as they've gotten bigger yet ecosystems continue to live.

complete ignorance, all of human society is completely reliant on agriculture. Heat blight will destroy yields across the entire planet, pollinators will die off. Comparing the tiny urban heat island effect to having global temperatures considerably higher than any point in human civilization's history is beyond ignorant.

>>11121135
>What on earth does that mean?
Are you illiterate? Nature absorbs more CO2 than it emits. Man does not. The change in CO2 concentration since the industrial revolution is solely due to man, regardless of the percentage of CO2 emissions that are manmade.

>So only humans can "dump" large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere?
Where did I say that? Are you really unable to read simple English or are you pretending to be retarded?

>How convenient! Instrumental data is much more error prone and has far less coverage than satellites, so isn't that data wrong too?
How is it more error prone? Satellite data is adjusted much more. And your question makes no sense. How does a correction to satellite data imply that instrumental data is wrong?

>>11121173
The model is predicting tropospheric temperatures, and the observed tropospheric temp data prove the model wrong. Are you denying this?

>>11121135
>Especially data from the 1880's and early 1900's, what makes you so sure that is accurate enough to be used?
The instrumental data goes farther back than that, but only data past the 1880s was determined to be accurate enough. This is partially what Berkeley Earth was set up to determine. You should look at their conclusions and the work of Zeke Hausfather. What makes you think it's inaccurate?

>But that's horseshit because our infrastructure and ecosystems can already deal with the weather which has much more extremes that constantly change.
Do you understand how averages work? Extremes vary around the average. If the average temperature increases then you will experience higher extreme temperatures. So the extremes of the future are going to be worse, and the extremes of the present will be common.

>Cities have gotten warmer and warmer as they've gotten bigger yet ecosystems continue to live.
You can survive torture, so why avoid it?

>>11121215
>http://www.realclimate.org/images/christy_trop_new_5yr.png
>The bottom line is clear though – if you are interested in furthering understanding about what is happening in the climate system, you have to compare models and observations appropriately. However, if you are only interested in scoring points or political grandstanding then, of course, you can do what you like.

sums it up perfectly, >>11121011 why are you ignoring global average predictions vs global average temps? And focusing all your attention in one small part of the system. Because it makes you uncomfortable? You're just sticking your head in the sand.

>>11121220
>You can survive torture, so why avoid it?
No u bitch. Grit your teeth

>>11121176
>worshiping the idea of consuming ourselves to death
Have you got WIFI in your hippy commune? Or is it 4G? Consuming until we die is what we're supposed to do.

>>11121224
You seem like an interesting person with an extremely fulfilling life, now go do what you were born to do BUY BUY BUY CONSUME CONSUME CONSUME IT WILL MAKE YOU HAPPY YOU ARE HAPPY YOU ARE HAPPY

>>11121194
Oh I see - and which side has the greatest media presence?

>>11121207
>the ocean and land are currently net carbon sinks, it's basic science. Educate yourself.
Yeah, and? What's this got to do with humans?
>once in 10 millennia events like basalt floods can and have in the past, but that has nothing to do with current events.
What's the difference?
>>11121207
>older instrumental data, and reconstructions from many different sources across the entire planet all provide similar results within an acceptable margin of error
Oh really? Are you saying that the instrumental data from the 1880's - 1920's had enough coverage to be called global temperatures? And it was accurate too?
>Heat blight will destroy yields across the entire planet, pollinators will die off. Comparing the tiny urban heat island effect to having global temperatures considerably higher than any point in human civilization's history is beyond ignorant.
Don't be so retarded - you mongs always say that weather isn't climate, yet it is weather that agriculture relies on to grow, not global climate temperatures.

>>11118836
>Letting politicians solve a problem that should be handled by engineers
>Not utilizing nuclear power to its full potential
>relying on sources of energy that goes dead depending on the time of day and weather

>>11121211
>Are you illiterate? Nature absorbs more CO2 than it emits. Man does not.
This makes no sense. Are you saying man isn't part of nature?
>Where did I say that? Are you really unable to read simple English or are you pretending to be retarded?
Because you claim that temperature hasn't followed CO2 until since we've started putting CO2 into the atmosphere.
>How is it more error prone?
Because there are a lot more factors that can influence the temperature measurements and there's much less coverage.
>How does a correction to satellite data imply that instrumental data is wrong?
Instrumental data simply doesn't have the coverage to be considered an accurate measure of "global temperature", yet the satellite data was "corrected" to closely match it, which does nothing to validate the correctness of the instrumental data in the first place.

>>11121220
>The instrumental data goes farther back than that, but only data past the 1880s was determined to be accurate enough
That's silly. The best way to determine if data is accurate enough is by collecting it yourself, rather than relying on data collected using primitive instruments.

>>11121496
>Instrumental data simply doesn't have the coverage to be considered an accurate measure of "global temperature", yet the satellite data was "corrected" to closely match it, which does nothing to validate the correctness of the instrumental data in the first place.
that's a massive fucking citation needed, global temperature monitoring networks are fucking massive.

>>11121534
>I won't be satisfied until you invent a time machine to go back and check the past data.
Couldn't we just go to the future and check the future data?

prove one time they lied

prot tip

you cant

>>11121560
unfortunately it's a one way trip

>>11121496
>This makes no sense. Are you saying man isn't part of nature?
Doesn't matter whether you consider man a part of nature, the fact remains that man is the cause. So how does this not make sense?

>Because you claim that temperature hasn't followed CO2 until since we've started putting CO2 into the atmosphere.
No, I said we've never seen CO2 increase before temperature until now, not that it's never happened. Humans have not been around for most of Earth's history.

>Because there are a lot more factors that can influence the temperature measurements
What do you mean? An indirect measurement of temperature via satellite has more factors affecting it than a direct measurement via thermometer. And many more assumptions.

>Instrumental data simply doesn't have the coverage to be considered an accurate measure of "global temperature"
It does, pic related.

>yet the satellite data was "corrected" to closely match it
When was this done? Every correction has been due to a specific mechanism of error discovered. The fact that they keep bringing the data closer to instrumental even by skeptics like Roy Spencer is indicative of the instrumental data's accuracy. You are confusing the effect for the cause.

>>11121534
You don't have to choose one or the other, so I'm not sure what your point is. And thermometers from the 1880s are hardly primitive.

>>11117530
First. I don't know how someone can unironically post a picture with a screenshot of an article headline and call it evidence for anything.

Second, photos of starved polarbears are generally misleading, as the bear seen in the photo, probably starves because of old age and worn teeth.

Third, polarbears populations are going up in some places. This is due to them being heavily hunted before. Now, some populations have hunting banned, others have certain restrictions to hunting. Anyway, many population are just regaining the former strength.

With this said, polar bears will suffer in the coming years due to less and less sea ice. Which they need in order to hunt seals. They can't survive on bird eggs and carcasses alone.

Looking into whole "too many polarbears in Canada" thought:
"Researchers agree that polar bears represent a growing threat to Inuit communities, but say that is because climate change has pushed them closer to human settlements – not because the bear population is growing."

ITT: A single Heartland institute shill attempts to muddy the water by gish galloping a bunch of easily debunkable crap

>>11117660
Kill the Jews, Chinese, Indians and Apefricans. Bam, climate crisis solved, housing problem solved, and we don't have to eat bugs.

>>11124840
And kill Americans especially

>>11124848
Yup, that should be a priority.

>>11124840
>Kill everyone who has contributed the least towards the problem.
>As much space as possible must be made for my consumption. The resources other people need to survive could be better used as a diesel for my oversized pickup and pizza for my oversized face.

>>11124840
>kill some scientifically extremely developed nations and niggers because a schizo nazi board told me they're bad

>>11113384
all the time

>>11124935
prove it

>>11125826
https://retractionwatch.com/?s=climate