Climate scientist Stephen Schneider of NOAA in the October 1989 issue of Discover magazine admitted that climate scientists intentionally mislead the public about global warming as a means of forwarding their political goals:>Stephen Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research described the scientists’ dilemma this way: >“On the one hand, as scientists, we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but—which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well.>And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
>>16092182Everybody deep inside knows climate change is complete nonsense.
>>16092182Stephen Schneider's brother was on the board of directors for Shell Oil Company. I'm sure there was no conflict of interest.
In 1971, Schneider was second author on a Science paper with S. I. Rasool titled "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate" (Science 173, 138–141). This paper used a 1-d radiative transfer model to examine the competing effects of cooling from aerosols and warming from CO2. The paper concluded:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17739641>However, it is projected that man's potential to pollute will increase 6 to 8-fold in the next 50 years. If this increased rate of injection... should raise the present background opacity by a factor of 4, our calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as 3.5 °C. Such a large decrease in the average temperature of Earth, sustained over a period of few years, is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age. However, by that time, nuclear power may have largely replaced fossil fuels as a means of energy production.So 50 years ago he concluded that increasing atmospheric CO2 would cause an ice age, but then 35 years ago he was positive it was going to cause global warming. And he was wrong both times lololololol what an idiot
>>16092182Listen CHUDScience isn't what's "True". That's a racist conception of science. Science is progressive, body-positive, anti-racist, and pro-democracy. The idea that science is only what's true is an invention by europeans.
>>16092182>which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts.That's just science vs science journalism. If you want all the caveats and confidence intervals then go to the IPCC. If you want the broad strokes distilled into a simplified form for retards like you then read a news story about climate change. If you want blatant anti-science garbage then go to daily mail or another political rag.
>>16092186You won't be saying that when you're sailing around drinking your own piss
>>16092190The scientist always copes and seethes, while the believer posts pictures as undeniable proof of sea level rise.
>>16093111Everybody knows that Scandinavia is experiencing glacial isostatic rebound. Please show the decomposition of how much it's the land moving and how much it's the sea level itself changing.
>>16092595If you want blatant anti-science garbage then you'd be better to go read a news story about climate change.
>>16092595>IPCCThats a UN propaganda agency, not a scientific organization. Every doomsday prediction they've every made about global warming has been completely wrong
>>16093111no its not
>>16093657"UN environmental official" is not a scientific publication.
How come 50 years ago the soientists were positive that CO2 was going to cause an ice age? What part of the soience about CO2 changed since then?
>>16095538because 50 years ago ZOG was shilling the "oy vey pollution is causing le ice age, that means you have to give me all your money" meme and they decided to switch to "oy vey pollution is causing le global warming, that means you have to give me all your money" meme because everyone realized that the ice age version was fake.
>>16096706Actually, smog from excessive pollution cooling the planet was a real issue; it's just the grift wasn't profitable. We just set up pollution controls and that was that.
>>16092182but we should adopt a one world communist dictatorship just in case, guyshttps://www.bitchute.com/video/8AHkAJrpAxd4/
Back in 89 we were still mainly worried about freezing to death in the next couple months.
>>16096750Only if the ayyys tell us like in the movies
>>16096759We did spend the 60's, the 70's and the 80's about how the next ice age is coming.Apparently, that was not to last?
>>16092329>So 50 years ago he concluded that increasing atmospheric CO2 would cause an ice ageHow retarded are you? He's talking about aerosol emissions leading to an ice age, not co2.
Cool, but I'm not listening to someone whose last name is Schneider
>>16097336>polluted urban zonesbut that is where 90% of humans live, faggot
>>16097336>the polluted urban zones that were affectedwhat is urban heat bubbles?
>>16098442The urban zones were better off with smog became it mitigated the urban heat bubble effect
It was never about the environment. It's about diminishing returns on extraction of oil for energy (in other words, they saw peak oil was coming, so they switched track).
>>16100203mining and engineer technology growth in general only makes it cheaper and cheaper to produce oil, rising prices are only caused by price gouging
>>16096813imagine soience has been shilling end of the world climate myths since the 1960s and the climate hasn't changed even slightly the whole time and yet the soience sois keep on shilling the same worn out story
>>16102902Imagine how low IQ the people who still believe the lie are
>>16092190>Stephen Schneider's brother was on the board of directors for Shell Oil Company. I'm sure there was no conflict of interest.interesting
>>16102902Only bad news are good news.You're not getting any attention by saying "Everything is actually ok!".Works for journalists. But for a lot of researchers too."We found no abnormalities" just doesn't have that ring that makes you stand out....Of course, nowadays this could be considered the new normal,
>>16093145>a news storyits easy to try and blame journalism, but you can get the same story out of any science textbook. universities not only have entire departments devoted to """"global warming""" but they also devote large fractions of the efforts of all STEM departments to studying the fake and gay climate scare
>>16104518Whenever you see any kind of "critique" against anthropogenic climate change, there's always a link back to Big Oil. Every single time. I'm almost tired of pointing it out. The names are so familiar to me.
>>16105352Tell me how Anthony Watts is a big oil shill
>>16104518Source: I made it up>>16105352You faggots will believe anything that confirms your bias
>>16105488Literally paid by the Koch Brothers via Heartland Institute. As I said, every time.
>>16105515
>>16105515So we're on a six degrees of separation kind of thing here. If the Koch Brothers paid Michael Mann, would his work be discredited by association too?
>>16105515>In 2011, the institute received $25,000 from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation.[118] The Charles Koch Foundation states that the contribution was "$25,000 to the Heartland Institute in 2011 for research in healthcare, not climate change, and this was the first and only donation the Foundation made to the institute in more than a decade".Cram it, fundie. Try again.
>>16106025
>>16106032>wheredoyouwantit.jpgput it next to your straight jacket and your insane schizo persecution complex
>>16106063You're the one who believes there is a massive conspiracy by scientific organizations all around the world to falsify evidence of anthrogenic climate change for... no real end whatsoever, other than clean sustainable energy that puts oil companies out of business.
>>16106080No. No conspiracy. Just groupthink and confirmation bias. Mass delusion.Was it a global conspiracy of falsified evidence when the majority of educated people believed in geocentrism? Or did they just ignore contrary evidence and try to censor and silence their opponents?
>>16106414
>>16104518
>>16106804Are you capable of understanding? I tell you that I don't believe it's a conspiracy or a hoax and you drop a webcomic about James Bond villainy?
>>16106414>Was it a global conspiracy of falsified evidence when the majority of educated people believed in geocentrism?No. Geocentricism, while untrue in retrospect, fit all observations at the time. To believe in a geocentric universe is entirely logical, it is the perspective we have as an observer.
>>16107570>To believe in a geocentric universe is entirely logical,It was also entirely incorrect, as is the AGW hypothesis, the "CO2 drives climate and not vice versa" hypothesis etc.
>>16092190/thread
>>16107781>"CO2 drives climate and not vice versa" hypothesisYou have no idea what you're talking about. Way to put ourself.
I like how when scientists say climate change is real, people will say it’s a big hoax even though said scientists have very little vested interest in lying. But when talking heads paid for by big oil say it’s a hoax, suddenly it’s the truth, even though it’s in big oil’s interest to lie to keep the population buying their oil for the rest of time. The same thing happened with big tobacco when they lied about smoking related illnesses. Pic related is all the evidence I need. Very funny how the global temp starts to increase right around the time humans start producing CO2 emissions. Funny how that works.
>>16107799Not an argument.
>>16107918Imagine believing we can make any worthwhile estimation about global temperature averages 1000y ago to within fractions of a degree Celsius.Nice religious faith you have.
>>16107918The idea that "scientists have very little vested interest in lying" ignores the fact that since 1799, political ideology has been a key driver in modern behavior. Sometimes an even greater driver than personal wealth. The vested interest is the belief by the scientific community that total economic reform will result in utopia. That's a perfectly valid reason to do something, even if every single attempted utopia has resulted in the exact opposite.
>>16107918>this is a hoax>NO, this is a hoaxFfs its obvious the same holdings fund both sides.>tobaccoAdictive substances have inelastic demand they can literally tax the fuck out of smokers and they'll keep going.
>>16108214>the belief by the scientific community that total economic reform will result in utopia.Ernest Jones, in 1913, was the first to construe extreme narcissism, which he called the "God-complex", as a character flaw. He described people with God-complex as being aloof, self-important, overconfident, auto-erotic, inaccessible, self-admiring, and exhibitionistic, with fantasies of omnipotence and omniscience. He observed that these people had a high need for uniqueness.
>>16108185https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#:~:text=Tree%20rings%20and%20measurements%20from,methodical%20thermometer%2Dbased%20records%20began.Wow it turns out you can learn how things are done by using the internet instead of exclaiming about how “we couldn’t possibly be able to know about the past because we weren’t personally there”. > Proxy measurements can be used to reconstruct the temperature record before the historical period. Quantities such as tree ring widths, coral growth, isotope variations in ice cores, ocean and lake sediments, cave deposits, fossils, ice cores, borehole temperatures, and glacier length records are correlated with climatic fluctuations.
>>16108646Translation:"Using a tea leaf reading method only known to the priesthood, we can scry into the past or even predict the future! Remember to never question the Priesthood, or a curse upon your bloodline!"
>>16108646>posts his religious scripture claiming it's scientific evidence kill yourself faggot
>>16108687>>16108671
>>16108697I accept your concession now that you've run out of arguments.
>>16108724This is bait because I refuse to believe that anyone is this dense, and if you are then I’m wasting my time communicating simple concepts like how your inability to understand science is not an argument against it. Any further bait will be ignored.
>>16092182>forwarding their political goalswell, if under 'political goals' you list the nerd's desperate desire to be perceived as important, a hero, savior of mankind etc ...
>>16108770You don't want to deal with the actual issue, which is the methodologies being used. Earlier evidence which disagrees is thrown out and replace with "corrected" and "improved" data that magically fits the theory, but not the facts.Oh, does the historical record talk about french wine grapes being grown in and around London during the Roman Warm Period? Actually, you silly billy, the new better data shows that it is ten times hotter now than back during the 1st Century, so I guess the Roman chronicles were paid off by big oil or something.Massive change in global temperatures during the 18th and 19th century, such that the Europeans freaked out about it and there were global revolutions over crop failure? There you go again, thinking that primary sources can compare with what climatologists know. The temperature change during the "Little Ice Age" wasn't THAT dramatic, not as dramatic as the current period of obviously human caused global warming - because there is no other possibility for observed climate phenomena in the modern day other than Human pollution. No sir, the conspiracy against Science is just that deep.And all the historical ice core data that shows warmer temperatures than now prior to Human civilization? See, that's just local data. A tiny blip compared to the vast wealth of data climate scientists can glean from anywhere. How? Well, point to a rock and we'll show you how it is proof of man made climate change.What about all those failed climate predictions, that forecast no ice cap by 2020 or massive rises in sea level? See, those were just predictions made by THE MEDIA, who of course lie whenever they get the chance unless guided by Science. Only when the Media is right is it proof of Science. When wrong, that's when they didn't listen to Science or put words in Science's mouth. You can't trust newspapers who just report on what scientists said back in the 40's or 70's. Only what Scientists say now matters. Science is always right.
>>16108646>tree rings can tell us what mean global temperatures were like, to within a tenth of a degree Celsius, with certainty.Get real anon. Any individual proxy record source is going to be dominated by local weather effects, not long term global climate.How are proxies verified? You can't go back in a time machine to verify them.
>>16108646>No, I can't personally explain how the priests, er, scientists, can know the temperature to within a tenth of a degree Celsius from 1000 years ago, but I have faith>tree rings and corals or something, stop disagreeing with meA proxy is not a measurement. Don't confuse the map with the territory. How are they calibrated/tested?
>>16108950>>16108929Peak retard
>>16109286>I believe we can know the average global temperature in 898BC based on the thickness of tree ringsJust admit you have FAITH in unprovable nonsense.
>>16108646>wikipediareferencing that garbage is like admitting you know absolutely nothing about the topic you're trying to pose as an expert in
>>16093657I know this is high level IQ stuff but>entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levelsis an independent clause to>if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000Also this prediction is already coming true. We did not reverse global warming by the year 2000 and now nations are being wiped out.https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/climate-change-rising-seas-may-lead-extinction-small-island-nations-n1276394What you fail to understand is that we 'buy in' to climate change for decades with actions we perform now. If we suddenly reversed climate change tomorrow we would still see global warming get worse for decades. We have already 'bought in' drastic changes to our planets until at least 2100 due to our failures to address climate change. We must now try and mitigate what happens after.
>>16110073All of those low level islands were already threatened by the end of the Ice Age and are currently being eroded away into oblivion by wind and wave. Their doom came 100,000 years ago, not within the past century.
>>16109307Just admit you don't know what you're talking about
>>16110080This is untrue. Your argument is that the end of the ice age is causing sea level rise, not man made climate change. Which is ignorant and stupid. I'm tired of you fuckoffs.
>>16110097>Your argument is that the end of the ice age is causing sea level rise, not man made climate change.Please prove that we are not exiting an Ice Age and entering an interglacial period, and have been doing so for the past several thousand years. Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.>but it is happening too fast!Not evidence!
>>16110144The evidence is and has been freely available for years. The fact that you don't believe it is all the evidence I need to completely discount what you say. Stop sucking the dick of oil companies and their shills.
>>16110087You don't know either, you just have FAITH in what tree-ring enthusiasts tell you.
>>16110150>the evidence is there, just trust me on thisI accept your concession.
>>16092186Not entirely, the real climate change will come with the sun baking the Earth in 600 million years.
>>16110318Tree rings are not the only proxy measurements we have. Your ignorance is the reason you're so upset.
>>16108925All that drivel and you can’t understand the simple concept of regional and global temperatures>>16108929Read the methodology of the studies that produce global proxy reconstructions
>>16110797>t-the Earth w-wasn't warmer in the p-past, t-that was j-just regional variation, the Roman and Medieval warm periods didn't exist!Cope.
>>16110966Those are local events, moron. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously if you don't even know that?
>>16111047They weren't, they were global events
>>16111047Local events. Local events which occurred in every single part of the Northern hemisphere, conveniently only in areas where they could be recorded by literal civilizations, and all cooling events localized entirely in areas where only future scientists could identify said cooling?
>>16111657
>>16111625>>16111657Wrong. Would you like to try substantiating that claim?
>>16112069prove they weren't global, all the evidence shows that they were global events
>>16112069Sorry. The Roman, Greek, Persian, and Chinese primary sources all agree. You are the one with the extraordinary claim based on interpretations of pollen samples.
>>16112773What evidence? You never posted any.>>16112778All in the northern hemisphere, not spanning the world, and you never posted a link to any of these "primary sources"How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?
>>16113002Chinese and Roman agricultural records are freely available.
>>16113217So you posted 0/4 sources you claimed I could examine, and now you still haven't posted any of them but suddenly only 2/4 are "freely available"? Further, you're still just using 4 data points, all from one half of the northern hemisphere.How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?
The evidence from the Roman warm period is that it was almost as warm as today
>>16113864That was a local event. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously if you don't even know that?
>>16114158>WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?>here>THAT WAS A LOCAL EVENT, NOT EVIDENCE
>>16092595>IPCCTo be fair, the AR6 has underestimated a few things to say the least, but that's a topic for another day.
>>16114299>THAT WAS A LOCAL EVENT, NOT EVIDENCECorrect. Is this you? >>16113217So you've managed to find one of the four sources you claimed you had. Would you like to address the fact that your sparse sample set represents less than a quarter of the Earth? Would you like to provide evidence that actually demonstrates your point?How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?
>>16114320See >>16113864>BUT IT WAS LOCAL
>>16114323So you've managed to find one of the four sources you claimed you had. Would you like to address the fact that your sparse sample set represents less than a quarter of the Earth? Would you like to provide evidence that actually demonstrates your point?How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?
>>16114405But even today, climate change isn't a universal warming - some places are getting colder, some places are getting warmer.The climate has always changed. The change is rarely uniform.
hey we bought our milk
>>16115116You've just made it clear that you don't know what the polar vortex is, the fact that it's destabilizing, or even understand the consequences. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?
>>16113864
>>16115251Why are you bringing up the polar vortices you schizophrenic?
>>16116576If you don't even understand that then how do you expect anyone to take you seriously?
>>16116472That's from a Greenland ice core. It's not global. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously if you don't understand the difference?
>>16116961Snooty, esoteric condescension is not an argument.
>>16116964>>16116961How do you expect anyone to take you seriously if you maintain this pilpul?
>>16117337>>16117340Neither of you are prepared for an argument. You have no proof for your claims and are completely ignorant of the subject matter which you have proven it over and over again. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?
>>16115251Polar Vortex is a local phenomenon by definition, we can better observe it through satellite today and thus through our advanced understanding it only appears to be significant, when in reality such oscillations are normal. The only thing "destabilizing" is the last remnants of the Ice Age which has been in the process of ending for over 100k years.
>>16117594>climate change isn't a universal warming - some places are getting colder, some places are getting warmer.>Polar Vortex is a local phenomenon by definitionYou are straight up a retard.
>>16117597>climate change isn't a universal warming - some places are getting colder, some places are getting warmer.Where in my post did I say this? In fact, I said the opposite. Note:>The only thing "destabilizing" is the last remnants of the Ice Age which has been in the process of ending for over 100k years.
>>16117603See>>16115116And learn what you're responding to.
>>16117714All you do is call people retards and ask how they expect to be taken seriously.How do you expect to be taken seriously if you never make any arguments and instead just snootily condescend?
>>16117714So basically the Ice Age is ending, and we're seeing the consequences of that. Cool.
>>16118058>>16118234>>16119891All you do is make retarded assertions with no evidence whatsoever. How do you expect to be taken seriously?
>>16120083CO2 is plant food.In higher CO2 concentrations, plants need less water.Much marginal land will become arable under higher CO2 conditions.Chew on those assertions.
>>16120461All you do is make retarded assertions with no evidence whatsoever. How do you expect to be taken seriously?
>>16113864>still unable to understand local and global temperatures
>>16120970There is no such thing as a global temperature. What an utterly meaningless concept.
>>16120988>>16121862>Imagine being this retarded
>>16107918that would only prove that earth axis of rotation shift but global climate stay same
>>16122100No it wouldn't, you moron.
>>16122301rude and wrong
>>16122464Prove it then, genius.
>>16092186Everyone deep inside knows climate change is real but that philanthropists, bankers, and politicians are exploiting it and twisting it for their own purposes. People just say otherwise because it's a narrative that is parroted by the regime and their golems. It's not that simple. >>16110404Also this.
>>16120970Interesting. I didn't know we had time machines that could give us data on ocean temperatures in the Pacific 1000 and 2000 years ago. Learn something new every day.>BUT WE ABSTRACTED IT FROMYou abstracted what exactly that gave to temperatures above the Pacific Ocean? Pray tell, what gave you those local temperatures. That image is basically pic related.
>>16122667
>>16123421That does not prove your claim, moron.
>>16123485I don't need to prove itits trueyou claim that climate before modern times was stable - and so that is the only options for itfor warm period in Europe there need to be cold period somewhere else to balance its outmoving poles around achieve exactly that
>>16122688this is probably the correct answer.these are the choices:1. Climate change2. Climate change anyway, with the political and economic oligarchy controlling the planet in a dystopiaThe beauty of #2 is that when they get the climate change anyway, they just tighten the screws on us, because we need to fight it harder.I'm going with #1 - don't care, it's not likely to be all that bad.
>>16123492You only say this now after decades of denying climate change exists or that we can do anything about itYou deserve the worst cancer there is, shill
>>16092190Shell Oil are hugely invested in Climate Change. You're spouting the same libtard talking points from more than a quarter of a century ago. Why have you neglected to update or learn anything new?
>>16123519What year is the publication in OP from, stupid?
>>16123491You do actually have to prove your assertions. Until you do I can dismiss them without argument.You're wrong.
>>16123527you didn't prove yours tho
this website has so much shit about climate scientists misleading the public, but no one gives a shit when oil companies pay scientists to do it
>>16123606Shills are paid to post here like on other social media platforms. You read any thread here and its the same as those places, the same kind of comments. I'm pretty sure it's just shills talking to each other desu.
>>16123519that OP's study is more than a quarter of a century ago oldShell was not hugely invested quarter of a century ago oldAre you able to conceptualize past, present and future? It's not that hard, you know.
>>16123606https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGn55BRyDSk
>>16123510You can eat the bugs. Eat all the bugs.I won't.
>>16123587No proof? Unsurprising.
>>16126834
>>16126850That does not prove that climate change is the result of axial tilt. Did you want to try again or would you like to acknowledge that you don't know what you're talking about?
>>16127207No. I just assume that you don't know what I am talking about.Which is probably most correct stance.
>>16128204You have failed to prove your assertion which demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about. You can try again if you'd like, but we both know you aren't capable of substantiating your argument.
>>16128209nah, you are midwit so it would be waste of timeand its not like you are open to even consider it so my point stand
>>16128215I accept your concession.
>>16129508Could be related to humidity and the heat index
>>16129508Because red is scary.
>>16129542No concessions for the midwits like you.
Ice is melting what another proof you need?
>>16130019It was a local event. Your graph most closely approximates a map of Europes average temperature, not the global average temperature.
>>16130926I know what it's named. It's, at best, mislabeled.
>>16131154what about all the other graphs that contradict it?the only reason they upset you is that they reveal the fact that thousands of years ago the world was cooler than it is today while having less atmospheric CO2.your premise of choosing data to support your view is literally what you're doing and this is simply undeniable regardless of whether global warming is happening or not.
>>16131154Wrong. It's trivial to check this for yourself. You should be ashamed that you ate up the bullshit without a single thought instead.
>>16131154>>16131250See the difference now, retard? Getting your "science" from funnyjunk and /pol/ is a losing strategy.
>>16132332Why are you comparing the global temperature anomaly to the climate of Europe? Do you not know the difference or are you too stupid to read the labels?
>>16131253SCARY RED DOTSAlso, I'm still amazed at how we got a time machine to travel back and record the temperature of the Pacific Ocean during the Roman Warm Period!
>>16132594You are a moron.
>>16126850> finally, that photoshop course paid off
>>16092190Genetic fallacyBut, if you want to play that game, Al Gore's father was the vice president of the Occidental Petroleum Company and Al Gore himself was patroned by the company to the tune of billions.The same is also obviously true of many of the other politicians and senators promoting Climate Change. Something stinks alright... And it isn't the CO2.
>>16123526>>16123519What difference does it make? A fact is still a fact.
>>16131253Hockey stick is fake. Read the leaked emails from Climate Gate. It is over.
>>16133738Incorrect. You have been the victim of propaganda.
>>16133730What does a retired politician have to do with climate science?
>>16093657yet they keep on making more doomsday predictions
>>16131250>its real because its in muh replication crisis journal everything else in those journals is fake so your garbage is fake too
>>16136502Take your meds.
>>16108920lol, what a clown show
>>16092190So you're responsible for all your family members decisions?
>>16107918>said scientists have very little vested interest in lying.People like Michael Mann became millionaires
>>16108646Where in that link is it justified that the errors in the global temperature are to within a fraction of a degree Celsius?
I hope humanity fucks up and most people will die.
>>16137172Source?
>>16138837
>>16138974So you just made it up?
>>16131250>central England temperatures compared to hemispheric meansYou’ve just given up
>>16092182>the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”Being effective at what? Manipulating people with lies?
>>16139860No, I think you're just scientifically illiterate. See how the temperatures in central England match the climate of Europe graphs posted in>>16132332>>16130019But it doesn't match the global data posted in>>16131253All of that means that the medieval warm period was a local event. You cannot point to a local event and insist that it represents the average of global conditions. You should know this from math and science classes you should have been required to take in high school. The only excuse you have for not knowing that is if you dropped out.
>>16092186climate changes 4 times a year in my country but I guess I just hallucinated that.
>>16093657>if it isn't reversed BY the year 2000Chuds too retarded to comprehend their own language again LOL>doctor: you WILL get lung cancer if you don't quit smoking by the age of 40>keep inhaling 4 packs a day>turn 41>no carcinoma visible yet>hahaha ... *cough* ... guess it was all a hoax ... *wheeze* ... checkmate smokelets ... *cough* Also>a senior U. N. environmental officialNot a scientist. Might as well interview Bill from accounting.
>>16140315Based
>>16092182>misleadI wouldn't call it that
>>16093657obvious errors are obvious, anon.
>>16096750>we should adopt a one world communist dictatorship just in case, guysShould? We MUST.
>>16107918you should watch this, reallyhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KfWGAjJAsM
>>16123336>I didn't know we had time machines that could give us data on ocean temperatures in the Pacific 1000 and 2000 years agowell, now you do!signed: a geologist
>>16140791
>>16140795
>>16140799
>>16140801
>>16140791>>16140795>>16140799>>16140801>>16140826https://science.nasa.gov/science-research/earth-science/why-milankovitch-orbital-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-warming/
>>16141144>5 min readlollmao, even
>>16140791>>16140801Milankovich forcing is cooling, not warming at the moment
>>16141377>nasa
>>16141377>>16141598NASA isn't lying just because it takes you longer than 5 minutes to sound out that article.
>>16141601>NASA isn't lyingyes it is, NASA is a propaganda agency, its their job to circulate lies
>>16142916Proof?
>>16140791Those concepts are too difficult for most people on /sci/ to understand. They all presume orbits are mechanical like clockwork and never change and there is no way to convince them out of their primitive ignorant beliefs because they're too low IQ to understand Milankovitch cycles. This video shows you the average ivy league grad's understanding of how seasons work, this is the level of ignorance you're dealing with on /sci/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXb7Oq13pjQ
>>16144426See>>16141144>>16141448Try to keep up, bud.
>>16108920What's the problem?We're doing an experiment, of course people who made a prediction want their hypothesis verified.
>>16141144From your source>Finally, Earth is currently in an interglacial period (a period of milder climate between Ice Ages). If there were no human influences on climate, scientists say Earth’s current orbital positions within the Milankovitch cycles predict our planet should be cooling, not warming, continuing a long-term cooling trend that began 6,000 years ago.This, then, is logically held up as the desirable end-goal of climate death cultists. Because net zero isn't enough for them. Nothing has ever been enough. No, they're all talking about terraforming via carbon sequestration to return CO2 to it's "natural" level which has been hovering just above the death zone of 150ppm for the last few millions of years.But there's nothing good about the glaciers advancing again and all of North America, much of Europe and Northern Asia being covered in glaciers again. You want to talk about disruptions to our way of life? Carbon emission by humans is a good thing. We've ensured that the planet won't die by naturally sequestering too much carbon out of the air and we've ensured that things will stay, globally, on average, at a temperature much better suited to human life.Remember, humans are a tropical species. There's only a very small part of the Earth, in and around the equator, where we can survive "naturally" without clothing. It was clothing but more importantly, fire, that let us leave the tropics. It is not without reason or irony that the output of fire, CO2, is the idol of the death cult.
>>16144977>We're doing an experiment, of course people who made a prediction want their hypothesis verified.Where's the control? Without a control, your experiment is worthless. Lots of things could cause the Earth to warm. But we don't have a "planet Earth with zero humans but higher CO2 levels" to see how much the climate changes.
>>16145008It's an experiment to verify a model, not test a hypothesis.The hypothesis testing is done with a computer.
>>16145029>It's an experiment to verify a model, not test a hypothesis.>The hypothesis testing is done with a computer.The delusion and hubris of man never ceases to amaze.
>>16145029>It's an experiment to verify a modelHow does it verify the model when is also possible to construct a model that would "predict" the changing climate as a function of land-use changes?
>>16145008Retard take. You don't need to have a second Earth as a control. Your understanding of science comes from binge watching mythbusters reruns.
>>16145005Take your meds, moron. You can't pretend global warming is caused by milankovitch cycles and then when it's demonstrated that you're wrong whine about how we need global warming to keep us from freezing to death and doing so is not evidence of some grand conspiracy.
>>16145008We have a Mars with zero humans but far higher CO2 levels and Mars has no measurable greenhouse effect. This proves that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas
>>16145870Mars has barely any atmosphere at all.
>>16145879Mars has a substantial atmosphere with clouds, wind, precipitation, weather systems, etc. Its the most similar thing to Earth in the known universe
>>16146532Lol no.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars>The atmosphere of Mars is much thinner and colder than Earth's having a max density 20g/m3 (about 2% of Earth’s value) with a temperature generally below zero down to -60 Celsius. The average surface pressure is about 610 pascals (0.088 psi) which is less than 1% of the Earth's value.[2]And furthermore >The atmosphere of Mars is colder than Earth’s owing to the larger distance from the Sun, receiving less solar energy and has a lower effective temperature, which is about 210 K (−63 °C; −82 °F).[2] The average surface emission temperature of Mars is just 215 K (−58 °C; −73 °F), which is comparable to inland Antarctica.[2][4] Although Mars' atmosphere consists primarily of carbon dioxide, the greenhouse effect in the Martian atmosphere is much weaker than Earth's: 5 °C (9.0 °F) on Mars, versus 33 °C (59 °F) on Earth due to the much lower density of carbon dioxide, leading to less greenhouse warming.[2][4]Mars has a measurable greenhouse effect of 5C. PDF related.
It's mostly urban heat island effect https://youtu.be/p4vSMj4R5Rg
>>16147348
>>16147348>>16148033Retard takes.
>>16148033>>16148493>smart guy here
>>16092182Stephen Schneider must've been an absolute genius to go on record in a major publication admitting that global warming was just a big lie.
>>16147144>wikipediaits like admitting you have no idea what you're talking about
>>16150751>Didn't read the paper>Twitter screenshots You will never be a scientist.
>>16151293>t. i skimmed a wikipedia article
>>16152257>Didn't read the paper>Twitter screenshotsYou will never be a scientist and that's why you keep getting linked to wikipedia. Learn basic science and you'll be linked to journals instead.
>>16147144Mars' low atmospheric pressure has more to do with the planet's low gravity as it does to do with it having a less dense atmosphere. The mass of CO2 in Mars' atmosphere is far, far greater than Earths, even claiming a 5º greenhouse effect by overestimating albedo means that Earth's greenhouse effect due to CO2 could not possibly be more than a minuscule fraction of 1ºC, which in turn means that CO2 cannot possibly produce any meaningful warming on Earth and thats without even considering the absorption limits of CO2
>>16153402Prove it.
>>16153706>i don't understand how gravity affects gas pressure >t. low IQ
>>16092186There's things like Last Glacial Maximum, Chinese smog skylines and the Cuyahoga fire. And then there's "climate change science." The difference is that those are all much more immediate in effect than ever expanding "WE MUST DO IT NOW OR IN 15 YEARS ITS ALL OVER" top-down policy calls.
>>16154291That doesn't prove any of your claims.
>>16154831
>>16155923
>>16157456
>>16157467
