/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15910977
>the observed correlation shows causation
did this man suffer severe brain damage or is the educational standard in sweden really this bad?

>>15910977
Nobody ever said that CO2 caused global warming.

>>15910977
>single author
>not public access
>the abstract is purely about correlation
>is he even aware that fossil fuels exist?

>>15910977
Since we can't read the article, let's look up the author Allan T. Emrén.
>Physical Chemistry and Nuclear Chemistry
Oh great, another article by a guy who works on a completely unrelated field. His last publication is from 2012 and he published a lot about minerals and shit. Makes sense, as a physical chemist.
By the looks of it, he retired long ago. It's so funny how many retired chemists try to "debunk" climate science. Why? What do they gain from that? Do they think that they become experts after dedicating their lives to a completely unrelated fields and then retiring? This "1000 scientists debunking blah" document that gets posted here occasionally is also full of retired industrials and chemists. Do you really not find people under 60 to support your arguments? Or at least people who know shit about climate science?

>>15911025
>not public access
Ok I found that he published a preprint of the article. However, the quality doesn't get better than "this correlation shows causation"
>During the 170 years, there have been four periods with increasing, and three with decreasing temperature. Their lengths do not look random. There have been 17 years up, 31 down, 34 up, 29 down, 31 up, 7 down, and 7 years up. Why are the lengths so similar? Coincidence?
Literal /x/ tier research. I'd like to look into the article if it's pay to publish. At first glance it looked like an ok journal, although I didn't find information about their peer review process. Is it really peer reviewed?

>>15911036
https://www.writingtoiq.com/ estimates your IQ as 81 (below average)

>>15911065
I love when chuds resort to this tool when they cannot debate the subject anymore. So far I haven't cared enough to figure out what the tool is actually testing, but I'm pretty sure being ESL doesn't help.

>>15910977
a) co2 concentration is dropping
b) co2 is plant food
c) you're a liar who can't into science

>>15910977
tl;dr:
>Pay us, we'll publish.

>>15911101
thats true of all journals, nature makes half a billion dollars a year publishing scientific articles.

>>15911101
OH NO NO NO NO NO
*inhales*
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>15910977
>humans can control the temperatures of the ocean
No, we can't. We can't control anything right now, and that's EXACTLY the problem. Global warming is BEYOND CONTROL at his point.
If we could control it, we'd have put a stop on it by now, but we're still too busy bickering how to do it best.

>>15911168
Oh great, was that the plan? Ignore calls for action for a few decades and then throw up your hands in the air
>Well, NOW it's too late. Might as well buy products from the rich palette of the ExxonMobil Corporation. The ExxonMobil Corporation has the fossil fuel solution for all your needs, from upstream oil production to direct sales to end consumers. ExxonMobil. Because it's too late anyway.

Seems like peer reviewed scientific papers are the gold standard of whats what in science, until one contradicts to soi's preconceived notions, then suddenly they become skeptics.
its pure emotional confirmation bias and a total lack of ability to address scientific issues rationally. when evidence contradicting their pet theory appears, the sois presume that only means the evidence is wrong

>>15911036
>retired
Anon if they do it while employed, kike lawyers come along and get them fired

>>15911310
>gold standard
Wrong. It's the bare minimum for being taken seriously. You'd know this if you weren't a tourist.

>>15911252
>Oh great, was that the plan? Ignore calls for action for a few decades and then throw up your hands in the air
Yes, it was someone's plan, not mine.

>>15911479
That image is so depressing.

>>15911519
Yes, it is. They really fucked us all

>>15911524
And I know that some useful idiot will soon comment either
>IT'S A CONSPIRACY
or the macro with the penguin captioned "take your meds"

I really wonder what's wrong with those people. Is that some evolved form of the kind of trolling that was always a part of 4chan? Are the people legitimately stupid or evil?

>>15910977
>The observed correlation between global tempearature and rate of grwth in atmospheric CO2 concentration shows that the global temperature warming is not caused by increased CO2 concentration. Rather the increase in CO2 concentration is caused by global warming.

This is like, 3rd grade level understanding of climate science.
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

If this dumbfuck tried submitting this to an actual science journal he would get laughed at. If he submitted this as an undergraduate paper in a climatology class he would get a 0.

>>15911543
>Are the people legitimately stupid or evil?
First, they were ignorant.
Then, they were incredulous and stubborn.
Then they got emotional and proud.
And now they can't give in.

>>15911550
>skepticalscience.com
(You) have to go back to r*ddit with that shit. Everything that has ever been written on SS has been proven false years ago by climatologists on /pol/.

>>15911823
>climatologists on /pol/.
Fuck you, I was drinking tea and it came out of my nose.

>>15911524
>>15911479
>anyone who disagrees with us is a heretic... I mean, funded by oil companies and REPUBLICANS
You mean the same oil companies that are currently funding green energy projects, and the same republicans that are pro-hydro and pro-nuclear? Those evil oil companies and republicans?

>>15912012
Yes, those companies. That realised it’s better to run their own vehicles on renewable energies, yet are happy to sell the inferior product to white trash like you.

>>15911823
As you wish:
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/11362

This is such a well known aspect of climate change only an idiot would keep arguing it and is proof that OP's paper is such an idiot.

>>15912026
So there is currently a vast conspiracy perpetuated by oil companies and republicans to purposefully sabotage their own interests in green energy, which they themselves would get rich from? Is that is what you are saying?

Because you're just regurgitating talking points from the 1970's.

>>15911823
>climatologists on /pol/
Lol no.

>>15911113
Braindead take. Nature and other open access journals charge a one time fee to help support this free, permanent, unfettered access. But **only if you pass peer review assuming they even consider your paper worthy to being sent to reveiwers**.
In other words, no, it's not pay2publish, it's a pay2permanent public access.

OP's journal is yet another paper mill garbage raking in the cash from crank and schizo like the author of OP's paper.

>>15912128
>its different when muh politically censored sjw soiyence journal charges a larger fee to publish than what this journal charges
>when journal that publishes article i don't like its bad
>but its ok when muh sjw journal does it because reasons

>>15912277
>peer review is political censorship
The victim mentality is strong with you. Do you think that your last paper got rejected because you're a white cismale?

>>15911168
LMAO, that is completely wrong. Is quite easy to solve the problem, just a few nukes and the chaos and starvation will do the rest.

>>15912288
That is how you get a tire around your neck and set on fire.

>>15911524
And now those fuckers are pushing for trash like wind and biodiesel, and getting tax cuts by pushing the global warming hoax.

>>15912299

>>15912110
Are you legitimately retarded?

>>15912277
0% reading comprehension
100 % resentful schizo shitpost

This is why paper mills continue to exist, so that dumb cranks like this can feel like they are part of the """"mainstream resistence"""" by giving them their money. Kek

>>15912298
>russian movie portraying le ebil nazis are unusually violent and brutal and russians as innocent saints
history is written by the victors

>>15910977
>humans can control the temperatures of the ocean and melt the polar ice sheets by engaging in common, everyday activities like talking on their smartphones or driving a pickup truck.
What's the point of pretending to be stupid?

>>15910977
i have some groundbreaking data to support the thesis of the article. should i contact the author?

>>15913345

>>15911168
So it's unironically over.
There's no point in doing anything anymore.

>>15913675
Wrong and debunked here: >>15911252

>>15911252
Might as well do so while you still have a chance.

>>15913679
If Hansen is correct, we'll hit 4.8C of warming by the end of the century with CURRENT LEVELS of CO2eq. Given that
>we're running out of natural resources
>the fossil fuels consoomption is only increasing
>boomer economy is still in action
>geoengineering is still mostly speculative
>CDR is still a meme
There's no way we'll adapt or mitigate. Some hopium remains in deep geothermal and boomer die-off, but it's just that - hopium.

>>15910977
against the wall.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/8AHkAJrpAxd4/

>>15911479
based Trump making you seethe
enjoy warmer summers

>>15911543
Cope and seethe

>>15912464
>YOU'RE A DOO DOO HEAD
I accept your concession.

>>15913923
I'll take that as a 'yes'. Be less of a retard.

>>15911065
I can't believe you perfectly debunked their argument like that with your estimated 110 IQ. You need at least 50 words of sample text so I had to continue your writing for you while doing my best impression of how you would write.

>>15913932
The only retard is you for having zero arguments other "IT'S ALL A CONSPIRACY BY RICH OIL BARONS, THEY'RE SITTING ON THE ELECTRIC CAR" nonsense from decades ago.

>>15911479
>>15911524
>>15911597
Oh christ, it's this schizo again

>>15913948
The "conspiracy" is well documented through public records that you would know how to find if you weren't a retard. Have fun being a useful idiot and furthering the careers of the people who view you as cattle.

>>15913957
>Have fun being a useful idiot and furthering the careers of the people who view you as cattle.
projection

>>15913689
I like a warm climate. Coldfags can die.

>Big Oil literally found funding retarded activists pushing most inefficient energy alternatives such as wind, knowing full well they will never replace fossil fuels
>weirdly always against nuclear energy as it is "unsafe" (would simply get them put of business)

>>15913957
May we see those records?
>inb4 anyone I don't like is part of the conspiracy

>>15914466
Green activists who champion wind and solar are the ones who want to rip out dams and nuclear plants. Nuclear actually won't harm oil companies, because you can't put a nuclear power plant into a car and there will always be use-cases where nuclear is unsafe (earthquake zones for example and terrorism risk areas).

>>15914522
no, those activists don't want nuclear, it's the European green party, a huge movement especially in Germany but in Europe in general. They just want the retarded green energies, just wind and solar, no nuclear at all. They managed to close the nuclear plants in Germany alone. And they are funded by the same people they think they are fighting against .

Adopting nuclear power at a large scale would surely mean a much lower income for oil companies and less funds.

>>15910977
>impact factor 0.972
I could write an article and get it published in this in 3 days.

>>15914519
You can see them whenever you want. There's this thing called a "search engine" that finds relevant results on the Internet and compiles them into a list.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/may/04/climate-sceptic-thinktank-received-funding-from-fossil-fuel-interests
https://www.campaigncc.org/climate_change/sceptics/funders
https://www.desmog.com/exxonmobil-funding-climate-science-denial/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/12/20/the-big-business-of-climate-change-denial-.html
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/09/oil-companies-discourage-climate-action-study-says/
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/climate-denial-machine-how-fossil-fuel-industry-blocks-climate-action
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/think-tanks-adam-smith-policy-exchange-legatum-iea-taxpayers-alliance-climate-denial/
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/03022023/dark-money-is-fueling-climate-denial-and-delaying-action-watchdogs-warn/
https://www.iflscience.com/who-funds-the-climate-change-denial-movement-53883
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/
https://www.asanet.org/footnotes-article/structure-and-culture-climate-change-denial/
https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/fighting-climate-chaos/exxon-and-the-oil-industry-knew-about-climate-crisis/exxons-climate-denial-history-a-timeline/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-01714-4
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3787818/
https://www.exposedbycmd.org/2022/03/21/the-dirty-dozen-the-biggest-nonprofit-funders-of-climate-denial/
https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/fighting-climate-chaos/climate-deniers/front-groups/
https://mediawell.ssrc.org/research-reviews/climate-change-denial-skepticism-a-review-of-the-literature/
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0002764213477097
https://journals.openedition.org/ejas/10305
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/global-warming-skeptic-organizations

>>15915079
>There's this thing called a "search engine" that finds relevant results on the Internet and compiles them into a list.
but that beats the whole point of just going "nuh uh" and declaring victory when people realize you're just a worthless narcissistic contrarian

>>15913689

It's caused by water vapor.
Retards won't understand this, but global warming is a direct consequence of hydrologically destroying so much land.

>>15916765
An image from Facebook called me an idiot. I am going to change my perspective now. Also, it convinced me that cattle farming is twenty cows on a meadow, which I'm sure is where my hamburger comes from. I forgot the concept of industrial farming thanks to this image.

>>15916779
Christ, is this in US?

>>15914888
>it's the European green party
LLM hallucinating again.
>They managed to close the nuclear plants in Germany alone.
The European Green Party (which doesn't exist) closed nuclear plants in Germany while a conservative/neoliberal government was in power? What's this magic?

>>15916779
It's still more environmentally friendly than thousands of square miles of solar panels. And more natural too.

>>15916780
This is in Brazil, but similar farms exist in the US. This article has some impressive pictures, but I couldn't right-click and save them for some reason and I didn't bother enough to investigate why: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/21/climate/beef-cattle-methane.html

>>15916783
>more environmentally friendly
Based on what? Your feeling?
>And more natural too.
It's not natural to have tens of thousands of cattle in a farm. But also, what makes "more natural" better?

>>15916786
>Based on what? Your feeling?
Based on common sense.
Cattle are part of nature, the environment. Solar panels aren't.
>It's not natural to have tens of thousands of cattle in a farm.
Nah, that's fine, but what IS unnatural is having thousands or even millions of square miles of solar panels that require far more maintenance than livestock, and far more resources to build and install them.

>>15916784
To be honest, I hardly ever eat beef - it's quite pricey where I live and it doesn't really taste that good compared to poultry, which I source locally.
But this, however, is the next level of slop.

>>15916786
Buffalo herds used to be many tens of thousands strong. Is that unnatural?

>>15916796
I could not verify your claim. Can you prove it?

>>15916801
Try starting here.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/where-the-buffalo-no-longer-roamed-3067904/

>>15916808
Thanks. Wow, it's really terrible what Americans did to them. That pile of skulls is chilling.

>>15916796
>>15916808
>>15916810
There are more than a billion cattle globally and 30 million are in the US. Cope harder with your fake bullshit.

>>15916779
These animals mostly eat grass straw and husks.
Feed lots are only used shortly before butchering because they make weight gain more efficient and the mear cheaper.
Pic rel is a natural water bufallo herd.
I also want to remind you very kindly that there used to be twice as many bisons in the US as there are beef cattle now.
This is after the larger bison species, great deer, woolly rhinoceros, mammoth and mastodon died out.
Cattle are the last thing you should complain about.

>>15916810
>oy vey muh precious sacred animals
move to india if you love bovines so much

>>15914888
>And they are funded by the same people they think they are fighting against .
They are useful idiots because they are idiots. Its always important to remember that half of all people are below average IQ and given that even 120 IQ is fairly dumb, stupidity should be expected from the majority of people.

>>15918591
>>oy vey
Wrong racist dog whistle, chud.

>>15919273
>Wrong racist dog whistle, chud.

>>15911101
>>15912128
When confronted with two groups making contradicting claims about an alleged problem, my inclination is to believe the one that isn't conveniently claiming the answer is for me to pay for something that they are selling

>>15920472
That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard. If your doctor told you that you have cancer and chemotherapy is expensive and a homeless man in the street told you that cancer isn't real who would you believe? Why don't you look at the evidence backing their claims instead of choosing to believe whatever is most convenient to you?

>>15920648
It's more akin to a huckster telling you to buy his juice and it will definitely help.

>>15920665
No it really isn't.

>>15915079
>the guardian
>greenpeace
>climate reality
Absolutely unbiased sources, right?

>>15920682
Can you refute anything in any of those articles?

>>15920683
>CAN YOU REFUTE THE CLAIMS THAT OIL COMPANIES UNDERMINED THE ELECTRIC CAR?
Yes. "It's bullshit".
>>>/x/

>>15920648
Your disingenuous false analogy just shows how pointless it is to talk to you. This is more like if I had no symptoms, went to my doctor for a checkup, he said I'm fine, and then another different doctor in the waiting room shouted at me that I have terminal cancer and I need to run to his chemotherapy clinic (which he profits from) and sign up for endless treatments now before it's too late and it might be already. And then I go home and turn on the tv and it's airing commercials urging everyone to get chemotherapy now, and then a bunch of politicians start talking about how everyone has cancer and needs to get chemotherapy at this clinic and how it's a total coincidence that they own shares in the clinic and are on its board of directors.

>>15920692
>>>>/x/
Is that where you learnt logic?

>>15920682
Biased by what? Is Greenpeace funded by Elon Musk now?

>>15920718
Is hamas unbiased on Israel?

>>15920722
Does the Guardian fire missiles on Vauxhall?

>>15915079
>I go to 4chan to spam it with MSM propaganda
how organic

>>15920783
>I go on 4channel to spam it with Al Jaber propaganda
Much better

>>15920692
I accept your concession.

>>15920700
>He thinks climate change deniers are more analogous to doctors than homeless men
Lol no. None of them have any relevant expertise.

>>15920783
Can you refute anything in any of those articles?

>>15921207
Does he has to

The premise is search engines exist, is obvious that no reporter got close to how

>>15921209
If he wants to dismiss facts as propaganda then he absolutely must refute those articles.

>>15921209
The “s” is already in the “does”, so the sentence becomes
>Does he HAVE to?
And don’t forget the question mark.

>>15921215
nobody has to, none of those outlets have any credibility, they're all propaganda outlets

>>15921316
Some of them (Greenpeace) are. Most of them aren’t.

>>15921316
Can you prove that assertion, or is this your coping mechanism?

>>15921317
they all are

>>15921317
Sorry, but reality has a left wing bias. It's not "propaganda", it's truth by definition.

>>15922308
kek
some people on this site talk like that for real

>>15922308
>>15922309
So neither of you can refute anything in any of those articles. Can't say I'm surprised.

>>15922314
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

>>15922319
>where's your evidence
>h-hey stop posting evidence that's a gish gallop
That isn't a gish gallop.

>>15922338
>my evidence? a bunch of propaganda articles
>now disprove every one of their bullshit claims :)
no

>>15922352
That wasn't me. I am just pointing out that you're a troll. Someone gave you evidence, pointed out there's plenty more, and you refuse to read or evaluate so much as a single one. That wasn't a gish gallop that's just you being dishonest.

>>15922358
that was my first post in the reply chain, you're just full of shit

>>15922358
A list of specious propaganda blogs isn't evidence, it's a gish gallop. Now stop trolling and shoo.

>>15922364
I think you meant the other guy not the one defending you. Unless you're a separate retard claiming you addressed something.
>>15922365
>nuh uh muh conspiracy muh propaganda
Not an argument homie. You're just conceding you don't have arguments and just have "nuh uh".

>>15922369
>posting in circles
concession accepted

>>15922319
Can you refute even a single source? Any one you'd like. Just pick one out, address the contents, and form a cogent rebuttal backed by evidence.

>>15922382
>evidence
See there was your first mistake. Thinking /pol/tards care about evidence.

>>15922382
Already did >>15920682

>>15922391
That is not an adequate rebuttal. You have failed to address the contents or provide evidence for your argument.

Would you like to try again?

>>15922390
I know they don't care. I just like to take them to a point where they have to admit that or leave. I feel like eventually they should get it, but I understand that they're mentally ill and likely incapable of ever understanding that they're wrong.

>>15922398
Fair enough but I couldn't pass up the obvious joke. Of course I am well and thoroughly guilty of something similar to that myself.

>>15922400
That's why you're here.

>>15922403
Don't you dare call me out like that.
Only the jannies can know just how much I fuck around with these idiots.
If anyone else knew I'd be forever living in shame.
Unless you're the same jannie because last time someone posted that to me it was a jannie.
...
You motherfucker.

>>15922404
Are you me?

>>15922409
I don't know anymore.

>>15922411

>>15922420

>>15910993
Yes, they most certainly did - for decades even.

>>15922421
Nailed it.

>>15922424
No serious scientist ever said it.

>>15922427
You ever on the chat or anything? You know in case we want to start "/pol/tard bullying anonymous" as a support group

>dozen post long redditeur circlejerk
sasuga climate change thread

>>15922439
Newfag.

>>15922437
No, I just fuck around here and on /b/ sometimes. I've got too much shit to do to actually socialize. The most I have time for is to call people retards a few times a day.

>>15922444
Alas. I'm not on there either but figured it was worth the asking. You have a good one I've got a lot of shit to do today too so I'm outtie.

>>15910977
Who gives a fuck?
Whether it's happening or not is irrelevant because clearly literally no one is going to do shit to curtail production of oil/gas either way.

>>15922453
You too, man.

>>15910977
That's horrible news. If it's not caused by the cars and cows and shit, then we're just fucked, because either way we're looking at mass extinctions if earth ever hits +4°C.

Guess I should move to Central Africa now while the land's still cheap and start building my underground hydroponic doomsday bunker

>>15922555
Sorry but isn't that model predicated on the phenomenon the OP is refuting? If the underlying assumptions are wrong then why should be believe the most hyperbolic predictions?

>>15913401
Are you saying you want the world to be like it was 120,000 years ago climatically? Or are you just burying your head in the sand and saying "because it's a natural cycle civilization and ecosystems won't collapse"

>>15922565
What do you propose as a solution to the natural variability of Earth's climate that isn't just learning to live with it?

>>15922555
That looks like a net increase in global habitability. ngl

>>15922944
Based on what, your feelings?

>>15923208
Cooler regions warming much more than warmer regions. Sahara being greened.

>>15923249
So all you have are your feelings. The "greening" is the result of human endeavours to reverse desertification and any land that becomes more habitable is more than offset by the land that becomes uninhabitable due to lethal seasonal wet bulb temperatures.

Facts don't care about your feelings.

>>15910993
>Nobody ever said that CO2 caused global warming.

the absolute state of modern soience

>>15923313
>Falling for false flag posts
The absolute state of /pol/tards

>>15913689

Man they really got to you didn't they?

>>15922565
i'm saying the article is shit. the fact that co2 emissions follow temperature changes and not the other way around been already established decades ago. moreover, he talks about equilibriums, sources and sinks, while all he has is a linear regression model. i'm not a climatologist, but even like a simplified beef market model would havea dozen of levels and rates interwoven.

not saying the guy is wrong, but his methods, conclusions amount to big nothing.

>>15923323
>everyone stupid on my side is ackshually an agent provocateur
>le ebil man is sabotaging my pure cause
Take your meds, schizo.

>>15923567
>i'm not a climatologist
Then shut up and listen to people who are.

>>15922398
>projection

>>15923771
>Still no cogent rebuttal

>>15923849
You make the same spam post in every thread and it doesn't need a handwritten response each time. Don't scream and piss because people gave you the dismissive reaction your blog vomit deserved.

>>15923857
If there remains no coherent rebuttal to his post I fail to see why it constitutes spam when /pol/tards routinely repost the same debunked shit 50 times a day.
So don't piss yourself so hard just because some people take an equally minimal effort approach to dismissing /pol/tard stupidity.

>>15923863
>If there remains no coherent rebuttal to his post
Just read one of the dozens of other threads where he spammed the same blogs and some innocent anon was duped into responding with effort.

>>15923864
I checked 3 random links in that post and found no other threads returned with anything of the sort. Checking for same image I do find some posts but the links have changed each time relevant to context, making your claim about rebuttals to anything given bullshit even then.

So from cursory glance I can only conclude that you're retarded.

>>15923857
So you still can't form a rebuttal to any single article. It's almost like you're entirely unable.

STOP BEING RACIST!!

>>15922308
>>>/pol/

>>15916212
Its funny because its true

>>15925387
never

>>15911065
>81 IQ
above average for global warming shills

>>15910977
>trying to reframe it as if driving your gas-guzzling pollution monstrosity around is a "normal everyday activity"
fuck off, burgerfat

>>15910977
also, prove that that's a legitimate journal
cranks can get anything published in a wide variety of bullshit journals

>>15928801
Nature has the highest retraction rate of all journals

>>15928800
why are you such a schizo science denier?

>>15930414
people who are too lazy to earn enough to own a car are incredibly jealous of the people who aren't too lazy to earn enough to own a car.

>>15930885
Take your meds.

>>15922338
yes it is

>>15932014
>Still can't address the contents of a single source
>Still can't refute a single source

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
>The Gish gallop (/ˈɡJʃ ˈɡæləp/) is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments.

>British journalist Mehdi Hasan suggests using these three steps to beat the Gish gallop:[7]

>Because there are too many falsehoods to address, it is wise to choose one as an example. Choose the weakest, dumbest, most ludicrous argument that your opponent has presented and tear this argument to shreds (also known as the weak point rebuttal).
>Do not budge from the issue. Don't move on until you have decisively destroyed the nonsense and clearly made your point.
>Call it out: name the strategy. "This is a strategy called the 'Gish Gallop'. Do not be fooled by the flood of nonsense you have just heard."

Why don't you try to attack whichever source you think is the weakest, or try to destroy the nonsense and clearly make your point? Could it be because you are unable to challenge the claim that "The "conspiracy" is well documented through public records"?

>>15932048
Well well well if it isn't me again. How's it going today?
I was tempted to reply before you did but "nuh uh" is such a lazy troll response and it's so fucking obvious such a short list of citations isn't a gish gallop. You hardly sent a list of 300 links. You think he's trolling at this point or really just that dumb and narcissistic? There's at least one habitual outside regular U.S. hours with us who is a total mental case and he's about as consistently wrong.

>>15910977
I've said this for years.

Global warming is primary caused by the use of thermal energy producing implements. All of the heat generated by the electronics, air conditioning units, burning natural gas for heating in the winter, steel production, chemical processing, moving trucks, etc.... The net effect of human thermal energy production is massively underestimated when looking at global warming, and if every human on the planet disappeared tomorrow much of the warming that we experience today would dissipate near instantly. We are constantly taking stored chemical potential energy into thermal energy and wondering why everything is getting hotter.

>>15910977
I've said this for years.

Global warming is primarily caused by the use of thermal energy production directly. All of the heat generated by the electronics, air conditioning units, burning natural gas for heating in the winter, steel production, chemical processing, moving trucks, etc.... The net effect of human thermal energy production is massively underestimated when looking at global warming, and if every human on the planet disappeared tomorrow much of the warming that we experience today would dissipate near instantly. We are constantly turning stored chemical potential energy into thermal energy and wondering why everything is getting hotter.

>>15932086
Is it really just that simple? If this has been something you been saying, whats your reception to people?

btw does that also imply that the greenhouse effect is negligible or not a reality?

>>15932143
People generally refuse to consider this as a reasonable explanation. As it's very difficult to come to a accurate estimate of total thermal energy production by humans in Joules. Taking 1/3 of total electric grid output would only be a fraction of the total thermal energy production.

The greenhouse gas effect exists, it's trivial to prove this with a home experiment. But if you do the math yourself, e.g estimated carbon+ output in a year, diluted into the estimated volume of the part of the atmosphere which it would theoretically reside, the green house gas effect cannot reasonably be assumed as the primary contributor to global warming.

>>15932147
Interesting.

Do they counter with anything besides expressing they're not convinced?
I suppose that not getting an accurate estimate of total thermal energy production would put off the people who need to see evidence supporting this theory besides the greenhouse comparison.

>>15932147
>But if you do the math yourself
Then I assume you have done the math yourself and can upload the relevant equations and data you based the inference from?

>>15932061
I think it's a different person, but they might as well all be the same. I'd genuinely be interested in their refutation, but they aren't going to make it be that would mean challenging their core beliefs. It's good to see me again though. I hope I'm doing well.

>>15932294
>>15932061
Sorry for the bad grammar. I'm a little drunk. Also, I'm doing well, as evidenced by being a little drunk

>>15910993
That "factoid" is literally the fundamental basis for the economic policy of every first world leftist political organization on the planet.
>WE'VE GOT TO HANDICAP ENERGY AND WESTERN CIVILIZATION BECAUSE.... MUH CO2 CLIMATE CHANGE!!!

>>15932297
I don't drink at all but I gotcha. Enjoy your day, or night I suppose if you are on the U.S side. I've never got anything remotely like a coherent evidenced based answer out of any /pol/tard they've consistently failed at middle-school science for the most part if they even try. They'll cherrypick a study or lineage of affirming research, ignore the context of it and the overall literature, and usually are entirely illiterate in even basic statistics nevermind anything more advanced. It makes trying to have any conversation exceedingly difficult when you have to try making strained analogies only to have people "debunk" you by quoting exactly what supports your analogy on and on. I think it's much the same here with threads like these, where it isn't just trolling. All denialism schizobabble lizardmen global conspiracy and not a single bit of work gone into it.

Or, since you're me too, I guess I do drink since I'm drinking. There are so many of me it is hard to keep track.

>>15911479
I can't believe anyone on this board was stupid enough to not only save but post this image and think they've made a point. It's an absolute comedy. It even caps off with "le bad drumpf left the Paris accord!!"
You know, that utter garbage piece of toilet paper that doesn't actually do anything to fight what the hysterics think causes climate change and instead literally includes braindead marxist drivel about transgenders and ethnic minorities?

Anyone that thinks the Paris agreement has anything to do with science should be shot in the head for criminal ignorance.

>>15911519
Hello sockpuppet.

>>15932318
you tell 'em!

>>15932307
I didn't used to drink and I intend to stop soon. I'm glad to hear that I don't drink and to see my thoughts on arguments with /pol/tards laid out so coherently.

Have a good morning, us.

>>15932801
This.../pol/...tell us more about this /pol/.

>>15923313
>there are five lights

>>15932307
according to https://www.writingtoiq.com/ your IQ is 93

>>15932147
>The greenhouse gas effect exists, it's trivial to prove this with a home experiment.
you can't do that

>>15917710
>These animals mostly eat grass straw and husks.
???
https://www.richimachinery.com/customer-guide/how-to-make-cattle-feed-formula-Beef-cattle-feed-formula-at-various-stages.html
>I also want to remind you very kindly that there used to be twice as many bisons in the US as there are beef cattle now.
???
https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/animal-products/cattle-beef/sector-at-a-glance/
https://academic.oup.com/jhered/article/100/4/411/858147?login=false

>>15932307
whats really going on is you are too low IQ to understand the concepts expressed by high IQ people, as proved by >>15933435

>>15935270
The thing about low IQ people is that they are the ones who are going to be dumb and get everything wrong and end up presuming they're high IQ.

>>15932303
No scientist has ever said definitively that CO2 caused climate change. Urbanization has far more to do with climate change than green house gases.

>>15935845
The general public has been instructed to believe: CO2 makes climate change, climate change will doom everyone, so CO2 must be stopped by destroying western industry.

It does not matter that you rightly or wrongly claim the scientific community never claimed any of those things, because the reality is the general public believes it to be so.

>>15932303
Who do you think wants to handicap western civilization the most?

>>15936673
Probably asians, especially jews and chinks

>>15932086
That's what the lockdowns was it didnt cool down the planet

>>15932086
you are making some sense and definitely that will have some effect (were it the cause politicians and denialists would only have another thing to ignore), but i think it's better to think of the earth climate system like an engine. an engine at idle maintains a certain equilibrium temperature. you can add heat to the system and the radiators will dissipate the excess, and it will return to the equilibrium again fairly quickly. likewise throwing water on the engine will cool it down temporarily, but the ignition in the piston will quickly raise it back to the equilibrium.

the fuel to turn over the earth climate system is the sun's energy. changing the amount of greenhouse gas is analagous to changing the efficiency of the radiators.

>>15937465
>you are making some sense
Except for the part where he fucked off the instant he was asked to provide the model and data he had from "doing the math" he says others should do.

>>15937526
im not really following this thread. i just thought the post showed some interest in the science so thought i'd give some food for thought

>>15937530
That would be fair so let me explain my reasoning. People lying about "doing the math" in my experience have no genuine interest in science at all and are just contrarians like the old electric universe idiots. So I'm a lot more dismissive because said anon seems satisfied just pulling crap out of thin air instead of doing the work to understand anything about any science let alone the topic of his own post.

>>15937535
There are lots of frothing liars and other kinds of absolute scumbags on this board. I don't blame you for having your guard up.

>>15937538
I don't think I'm all that harsh about it. Seems a fair minimum criteria. "Did you, or did you not, do what you claimed?" so idk seems like a fair question to me and if somebody fucks off it's fair to say they didn't.

>>15937526

>>15938176
I always forget just how out of his depth and overconfidently retarded Willis is. Take this line, for example,
>This means that there is code to calculate the albedo of the sea ice, but sometimes that code comes up with unrealistic output.
Which if you know anything about nonlinear systems modeling is to be expected as the system walks or you try to project it into the future. Can occur from a number of dimensional reducing algorithms or simplifications that may be necessary due to limitations on things like computing power. Tendencies of such systems in reality or simulation to result in bifurcations and catastrophic bifurcations, so effectively "escape", are quite common from many mechanisms such as feedback loops.
There is also this problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_dimensionality
As with many other things you have to set boundaries on probabilities for simplification and accuracy, as well as often averaging out errors over some minimum number of runs as you're dealing with a probability distribution. So is that what he then talks about?
Hahahaha no, no he does not, he instead thinks that is a failure of physics.
>But rather than figuring out why, and then fixing the problem, the NASA team are just replacing the bad value with the corresponding maximum or minimum values. Science at its finest!
So dumbass rather believes this is a failure of his mistaken 17th century notion of science. Does he provide a better alternative? No, just mocks other people from his ignorant high horse. It's just incompetence or conspiracy because it doesn't fit his ignorant notions and he is, of course, faaar too busy to worry about silly little things like dirtying his hands gracing climatology with his brilliant mind.

tl;dr dumbass doesn't know what dynamical systems are and thinks boundary conditions are a conspiracy to hide incompetence. He doesn't provide an alternative that works without these he just provides hollow criticism from pure ignorance instead.

>>15938176
In addition to >>15938258 since you don't have infinite computing power there are many cases where just setting lower or upper bounds is the most computationally efficient solution. Rather than adding even more variables creating overfits or modeling ever smaller networks of attractors to achieve the same thing.

But no NASA is just dumb according to Willis. That's clearly the problem. Of course he can't be the idiot here. No siree.

>>15938262
>Of course NASA can't be the idiot here. No siree.

>>15938176
I should've waited until the end because it gets infinitely dumber. I thought I peaked Mt. Stupid but I was wrong.
>I’m simply pointing out that these [models] are not ‘physics-based’ – they are propped up and fenced in to keep them from crashing.
Why does anyone listen to this fucking idiot?
>>15938271
The sad thing is some people are truly so dumb I can't tell if you're attempting to troll or if you actually believe that was some kind of "gotcha".
>I explain why someone's retarded
>you post a meme and can't explain shit
we are not the same

>>15938316

>>15937535
Math is just a language
Doing the math is no different then stating the same thing is plain 4chanese
It only serves academics which you sound like a 100%

>>15938271
NASA is a government propaganda agency, not a scientific organization.

>>15940163
Indeed.
And co2 doesn't exist because its plant food, and chemistry is a cult.

>>15911101
Inder is an Indian given name.

>>15939041
you sound like a 100% bitch

>>15940294
NASA is a government propaganda agency, sorry if that emotionally triggers you and gets you irritated and upset

>>15910991
>https://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/abs/10.1504/IJGW.2023.132276?journalCode=ijgw

http://www.nuchem.se/allan/ae.htm

he seems a bit odd

swedish system is fine

>>15912128
are you really advocating for nature who charges you just shy of 10000 EUR to publish open access?

>>15941533
sounds like you, idiot

>>15910993
That's why all the scientists came out an unanimously and forcefully denounced Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth' a decade ago right?

Just like the Watchtower orgnanisation forcefully denounced the the 'zealots' in their ranks who were running around saying the world was going to end in 1975, even though it was getting them converts and making them money, right?

I mean if I looked at material from the time I'd see that shit being denounced everywhere wouldn't I?

And I'm sure if I asked people who were there they wouldn't still wouldn't believe the simplistic CO2 thing would they? Because it was all deboonked by responsible scientists who would never say it, right?

>>15942161
to be fair, other greenhouse gases contribute to the change as well as other forms of human activity and natural factors

however, NASA doesn't even agree with secondpost anon lol.

>Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere warms the planet, causing climate change. Human activities have raised the atmosphere’s carbon dioxide content by 50% in less than 200 years.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

>>15942329

>>15942475
>I don't believe in basic physics because the Government ALSO believes in basic physics
Grow up.

>>15942161
>Al Gore
A politician
>Watchtower
A religious organization
You cannot point to a single scientist who ever claimed CO2 caused global boiling. The consensus has been that Human industrialization and their chemical output are causing ecological damage that then results in climate destabilization.
>why did nobody debunk it
Because Science has nothing to do with American politics.

>>15942506
>The consensus has been that Human industrialization and their chemical output are causing ecological damage that then results in climate destabilization.

I'm genuinely interested in seeing if that is the case; do you have any sources for this?

Yet another science denial thread.

It’s all so tiresome.

Humans influence the atmosphere but the retarded media is over exaggerating it up the ass

>ITS THE HOTTEST SUMMER EVER
lol…

>>15932086
That phenomenon has been known for years - it is anthropogenic waste heat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_heat#Anthropogenic_heat
And no, it is not a significant problem yet, and won't be for a few decades (assuming current rates of growth and industrialization). By the end of the century, yes, we'll be a little fucked.
I'll put forth a thesis as to why.

Consider the concept of radiative forcing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
Briefly:
>Positive radiative forcing means Earth receives more incoming energy from sunlight than it radiates to space. This net gain of energy will cause warming.
>Conversely, negative radiative forcing means that Earth loses more energy to space than it receives from the Sun, which produces cooling.

Here's a link to a 2022 analysis by NOAA: https://gml.noaa.gov/aggi/aggi.html
Scroll down to Table 2, and look at column "Total" - you'll see a (positive) value of radiative forcing of roughly 3.4 [math]W \cdot m^{-2}[/math].
Sources (aoss-research.engin.umich.edu/faculty/flanner/content/ppr/Flannr09.pdf) from the Wikipedia article waste heat put the global radiative forcing from this specific cause - in 2005 - at roughly 0.03 [math]W \cdot m^{-2}[/math] - let's be crazy and say it's doubled to 0.06 [math]W \cdot m^{-2}[/math] in 2022.

So as you can see, it's still 50 times smaller.
>inb4 Wikipedia
I picked it for its easily available sources - feel free to look around.

>>15943253
>wikipedia.org
>noaa.gov

>>15943441
It's clear you're not interested in genuine discussion - look at what I closed my post with:
>I picked it for its easily available sources - feel free to look around.
I'll repeat the exhortation: feel free to look for other sources.

Yours is not a valid reply, really - an ad hominem to disguise either the fact that you speedread in an attempt to troll, or that you're a bare-faced shill.

>>15943576
>feel free to look for other sources.
>the sources:
>wikipedia.org
>noaa.gov
fake and gay, are you a glownigger yourself or do you just lick their balls for free as a hobby?

>>15943253
>wikipedia
fake af

>>15944409
Give that post a good read this time before you delete your post again. Evidently you missed the point and got triggered by wikipedia instead.

sure would be nice if people who've never been able to pass thermodynamics would stop trying to pass themselves off as thermodynamics experts.

>Doubling energy in a system doubles it's temperature
nope

>>15945476
The global warming cultists have devoted themselves to a lie so of course they're going to lie about everything else too. Thats what liars do.

So how come CO2 doesn't cause warming if that's what it does? where does that energy go?

>>15911823
>climatologists on /pol/
shit, this is actually comedy gold

>>15911550
What scientific data supports ice cores? The answer is none. They assume a model and generalize it over infinity and make bastard conclusions. These retards literally can't keep calibrated masses from changing. Why should anyone believe their speculation on open environments?

>>15947362
I suppose you're free to believe in absolutely anything you want or feel then, because science/empirical methods are not absolutely perfect.

God, I hope you have or can come up with a better mousetrap to account for all the relational changes that can be measured on the globe.

>>15911036
>unable to figure out why only those outside the "game" can call on it
I'm gonna go with >>15911065 AI and agree on that IQ rating.

>>15948342
>consensus wrong because conspiracy
meds, schizo. Meds.

>>15948367
>completely distorts what I implied
So you are, indeed, unable to figure it out as I said here >>15948342
Thanks for supporting my claim.

>>15910977
>Volcanoes erupt and spew tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere during snowball earth, no open ocean surface to absorb it, so it heats the earth up and melts the ice
It's a greenhouse gas.

>>15948376
>throws tantrum when called out
not fooling anyone bud

>>15948422
The argument singling out that guy for not having direct climate science credentials and not being a current-enough professional was a bit weak imo. At least they've been in the physical sciences and that's sufficient I would think to reasonably consider the possibility that they might have an insight.

btw I'm not >>15948376 and I do respect the consensus over some conspiracy shit

If atmosphere is having higher CO2 levels, it reflect down, what water clouds or surface reflects up. That's it.

>>15949059
CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas

>>15950034
It's the poster child of greenhouse gases.

>>15950040
No it isn't, CO2 doesn't cause the greenhouse effect, if it did then Mars would have a massive greenhouse effect and wouldn't be capable of forming polar ice caps

>>15951094
Nonsense.

>>15951094
Mars is lacking in atmosphere

>>15948525
>The argument singling out that guy for not having direct climate science credentials and not being a current-enough professional was a bit weak imo
That isn't quite what's going on here. It's that he not only doesn't appear to have put in the effort to understand anything about climate science, but appears to be making fundamental mistakes that would be fundamental mistakes even in his own field e.g. arguing what amounts to "correlation = causation, therefore post hoc ergo propter hoc". Other anons already pointed out these fundamental conceptual mistakes that would be mistakes even in his own field. By analogy it is kind of like the works of one Young Earth Creationist "Jeffrey Tomkins" making different fundamental mistakes in calculating genetic similarities, though in his case per recent critiques of his "work" it would appear he's being actively dishonest rather than merely incompetent.
>At least they've been in the physical sciences and that's sufficient I would think to reasonably consider the possibility that they might have an insight.
I would if, as some of the initial posters noted, he were not coming "right out of the gate" with mistakes in conceptualizing scientific models one should only expect middle school students to make. It does not matter what else he has to say after that, as whatever may or may not be right will then only be right by pure accident.

>>15951449
That sounds reasonable. Sorry for missing this context.
I do like the idea of there being a chance for an outside party offering something profound. Unfortunately, it seems like what one could expect usually is bunk from kooks and shills.

>>15913943
Consider that mouth-breathing 80 IQ climate supporter while pondering your self-generated text.

>>15951550
>I do like the idea of there being a chance for an outside party offering something profound. Unfortunately, it seems like what one could expect usually is bunk from kooks and shills.
I understand that but to get at something profound typically requires far more effort than people think. There are examples but most commonly in debunking. For example, you will most often find treatment of geometrical analysis of Earth and hypothesis testing in the context of debunking "flat earth" proponents just doing experiments wrong or lying about having done experiments e.g. "roohif" and his theodolite examples in some videos https://www.youtube.com/@roohif/videos

Using Jeffrey Tomkins as a very recent example, there has been most recently a critical in-depth series of replications and reviews of Jeffrey Tomkins's work by "Gutsick Gibbon", her husband (for the code), and "Roohif" (for the genetics), in response to criticisms and some mistakes of GG's original critique by "Rob Carter".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzkYmKJ6Sk8

You don't have to watch any of these videos as I'm referencing them as an example of the kinds of multi-month multi-party work people often have to do in order to contribute something useful. In this case "GG" working with others to replicate and figure out the mistakes of Tomkins, even though she studies primate morphology not genetics, is outside of her field and required months of both reading and the contributions of many others. One person is generally not "coding expert + software expert + crossdisciplinary expert + mathematically inclined (or in relevant ways)" etc. Even as "basic" as demonstrating how someone's obvious bullshit is bullshit, nevermind profound and novel in a field. My point is "this is why it's so rare" and "people completely fail to grasp the order of complexity required and amount of work involved in even analyzing obviously false claims".

That's why it's so rare. It's far harder than people appreciate.

>>15951581
Sounds like schizos fighting schizos.

>>15951583
Just people who are involved for whatever reason in crazy circles, and probably the most common would be YEC in America. Just demonstrating how much time and effort it can take to reproduce and explain somebody's intentional deceptions, nevermind contribute novel findings to a field already full of many disciplines and very competent scientists or mathematically inclined people. Another example related to that would be Aaron Ra's "phylogeny explorer project" which continues to require many hands and IS a unique contribution to phylogeny, which took both "many hands" and many years.

That's why you tend to find most individual attempts at "profound" things are by cranks, and where not lying (i.e. Tomkins) they're narcissists who think their extremely basic (and generally wrong) effort is profound because nobody can be smarter than they are. A normal person would tend to get some inkling they're mistaken. Especially, these days, because so many sophisticated papers are accessible on the internet and involving modeling, programs, and mathematics, typically far beyond what cranks will comprehend or utilize.

Doesn't mean you don't get meaningful contributions by individuals from "the outside". But it does tend to mean there's no "overturning all of science" journalist-type bullshittery like headlines would have you believe happens every week.

>>15951594
I appreciate your elaboration and see your point in concept, which is great. The yt-debunker lore and crank psychoanalysis seems unnecessary. It is discouraging hear that it has to take so much effort to mop up the slop of those who are nobodies who didn't really accomplish anything.

>>15951713
>The yt-debunker lore and crank psychoanalysis seems unnecessary
It is just one presentation of the dynamic playing out and illustrating how much effort is involved in merely evaluating cranks/lies. Typically even the most sophisticated independent efforts are most commonly associated with simply falsifying crank notions whether it's flat earth, YEC, antivaxxers, etc. Reason being those interested specifically and with enough consistent energy to be making a "profound contribution" are usually going to end up specializing in that field to begin with, or on journey to make more meaningful contribution as some of those "debunkers" will do later in life.

Sure maybe you didn't need the example to get the idea, but others may find it helpful in more realistically setting what the real scale of complexity is on that same intuitive basis. That is, by comparison with just the effort and understanding required that just goes in to falsifying/debunking cranks. You need a lot more beyond that to meaningfully contribute to science in some "profound" way and very few, even in groups of many dozens of very talented individuals, manage to do that sort of thing. Almost none mange it alone.

Does that help explain why I thought it necessary to add the youtuber lore as a practical example? It connects and you could probably find your own examples in whatever anti-crank circles you prefer (if any). Many who find no interest in cranks or debunking cranks may simply lack a point of comparison altogether, too, so I went with one recent to hand.

>>15951713
>It is discouraging hear that it has to take so much effort to mop up the slop of those who are nobodies who didn't really accomplish anything.
in far fewer words than I used https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law
"The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it."
So the energy needed to contribute to non-bullshit is orders of magnitude bigger than even that.

>>15951739
>>15951743
Pastey and soft-skinned youtube skeptics/debunkers are cringe even if they are factual right; they wont be listened to or respected by mostly everyone who isn't like them or leaning their way already. I think the extra lengths you feel are necessary just end up looking like weak flailing against a stalwart ignoramous opponent to people's lizard brains.

>"Oh this guy looks confident and presents themselves as a defiant underdog; I FUCKING LOVE UNDERDOGS"
>"Oh some people who look like they never leave their computer screen and go outside are being being overly pedantic in responding to them"
>"Gee they sure seem really defensive putting in this much effort to prove this guy wrong"
>"God, there's more of them. HAHA is this some 'Damage Control'?"
>"Whoa, uh, did they de-boonk em? Their videos are tl;dw for the most part and now they seem to be engaging in some serious backslapping now."
>"LOL, you sure got 'em nerds; sure you did with all that boring shit. Does the Truth simply need such a bulwark to defend it? It really can't stand on it's own and needs so much support?"
>"Doubt it. That's not what I was raised to believe. I'll continue listen to the Bible rather than you know-it-all fucks."

You seem irritated by the word "profound." I meant an insight that has the power to change a dominant perspective or is challenging to group-think. Not as some woo-woo thing or whatever.

>in far fewer words than I used
Thanks. btw I'm aware of that it is very discouraging. If the case cannot be any less bleak in reality, it's more tempting to just grift and get that bag. My boomer relatives may really love me again by echoing what they already believe, especially in better words than they have the intelligence to muster. Also, by telling them what they want to hear to ease their cognitive dissonance and provide comforting closure/validation on confronting issues.

>>15949043
GEE THIS IS VERY INTERESTING STUFF, GRANDPA

Fake and gay

>>15952340
>Pastey and soft-skinned youtube skeptics/debunkers are cringe even if they are factual right
This instantly lets me know I am dealing with a teenager. If not, someone who is mentally remaining one. Lost all interest in anything you have to say the second you unironically begin this cringe incel talk.
>You seem irritated by the word "profound." I meant an insight that has the power to change a dominant perspective or is challenging to group-think. Not as some woo-woo thing or whatever.
I correctly identified how you meant it. I've no idea why you think I was "irritated" by it given the whole point was how unlikely it is for anyone to achieve in competition with hundreds of highly talented people whose entire careers are in a particular field as it is. Particularly climate modeling where you've a lot of advanced mathematics involved.

>>15952646
HA it's not really me but those who you're trying to convince that feel that way; not just young malcontents but closed-mined boomers.

>Lost all interest in anything you have to say the second you unironically begin this cringe incel talk
Not for very long, evidently.

imo the youtuber junk looks tangential and masturbatory. This is 4chan and I think its important for communication that one's message fits the medium. That's stuff fine on youtube; here it's spergy.

>I correctly identified how you meant it.
you just seemed especially emphatic about that word; that's all.

>>15952713
>you just seemed especially emphatic about that word; that's all.
Well were we talking about meaningful and unique contribution? If so yeah "profound" would be at the extreme end and extremely rare. If you just mean any sort of contribution it is far more likely an individual can achieve that, but not the kind of profound transformative sort you were talking about. Why the hang up? I didn't even pick that word I just kept using it as a referent.
>but those who you're trying to convince
You're reading this wrong. You don't bother reasoning with the unreasonable.
>Not for very long, evidently.
In the way that counts. As I said you're reading this whole thing wrong and I'm progressively giving up wasting the effort to keep explaining as it gets pointlessly more meta. I think we're done here.

>>15952646
>cvringe incel talk
woman spotted. No wonder you believe the goyence.

>>15952777
Alright then. Have fun wasting your life preaching to the choir and fighting a losing battle. Maybe it would be best for you to keep it up on just youtube and not 4chan, the home of the teenage incels, since you like your yougoobers so much.

>>15953093
we were having a conversation my guy I'm not playing savior nor do I think people dispositionally averse to reason can be made to be reasoned with. Just because I don't care about people who don't care to think doesn't mean I'm "preaching to the choir" and I can't see how you square that circle without making a whole lot of assumptions over what was for me just a little conversation to pass the time and give someone asking about it some relevant ideas. What does that have to do with fighting any kind of "battle"?

Just. Dude. Ya took the ball off the field anon calm ya tits

>>15953126
You're just full of shit

>>15953228
ok

>>15910991
What is causation if not statistical correlation?

>>15953872
A correlation by itself is not enough to assert causation. More criteria are required, I haven't read the study so I don't know if they go into detail with this, but correlation = causation is also 90% of what the news outlets say about climate change so its not a really good argument for either side.

>>15941775
>a government agency is not a government propagandist
Would be the first time if it werent' mate.

>>15953918
second clause, retard

>>15952340
>GEE THIS IS VERY INTERESTING STUFF, GRANDPA
old people are smarter than you are, you should stop being so full of yourself and learn to listen to them, they have a lifetime of experience and learning to draw on, thats why all of the most important people on the planet are old.

This thread is an absolute goldmine of hilarity

>>15954107
Not in a good way

>>15954055
Yeah that's why my grandparents get targeted with so much junk mail and scam calls.

>>15954055
BIDEN 2025

>>15953872
causation: the action of causing something
grab a dictionary retard

>>15910977
Yeah, sure, those studies probably have 100% credibility and were conducted by ethical scientist that didn't receive any financial incentives or favours
c'mon, wake up you dumb shit, even in the 1940/50's tobacco industries paid doctors to claim smoking was fine
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2879177/

>>15910977
>Journal of Global Warming
Sounds like a very trustworthy source. Not.

>>15954773
>c'mon, wake up you dumb shit, even in the 1940/50's tobacco industries paid doctors to claim smoking was fine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

>>15954165
that happens because they have money and you don't. college children live like overaged babies, daddy pays all you bills for you, just like when you were an infant

>>15955667
Ok, Boomer lol

I'm well out of collage btw. My family and I had to keep a close eye on our grandparents because they would otherwise keep falling for scams because they were going senile bad back in the '00s. I knew not just them but their whole circle of aging friends. They were victim to the same targeting seniors receive from bad actors taking advantage of their cognitive decline.

I'd listen to both twenty-somethings and eighty-somethings if they have something of merit to say instead of falling for an appeal to age fallacy

>>15943128
If right wingers are so short sightedly selfish you have to pitch it to them ok those terms?

Why do you deserve and endless supply of cheap oil, that makes or enemies rich, or even worse CANADA?

If you have no right to effect others lives, why do you with even more real pollutants? (benzene in gasoline, uranium in coal fire, ocean acidification)

Why do you have the right to everyone's tax money for highways to nowhere? How does this make you not a communist?

Leftist are supposed to track smarter in the demos, yet they are so stupid they can keep a separate set of books, a dialectic, that "Republicans" (morons squatting in the party since they were forced to not use goverment to bully black people, or force their religion on people), are hypocritcs unto themselves. I'm not here to say if that will work. They are children who might stay in denial, but it's the only move.

>>15910977
>the rate of change in CO2 concentration is controlled by global temperature rather than vice versa.
correct, CO2 lags temperature changes rather than the other way around.

>>15957586
no idea if you're a shill or a troll, but if there are articles debating why your exact point is moot, you should be considered a bad troll/shill: https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
Come up with something new.

>>15910977
Copied my questions about the greenhouse effect from other thread.

Wouldn't thermal energy radiate back into space as much as it does into the atmosphere? Or even moreso into space due to a more significant energy gradient?

Also, why would carbon in the atmosphere have a greater heat capacity than carbon in the earth? It's the same amount of mass within the system.

Not trying to be contrarian here. I'm 50/50 on the matter. Couple of points don't make sense to me.

>>15957646
>Wouldn't thermal energy radiate back into space as much as it does into the atmosphere? Or even moreso into space due to a more significant energy gradient?

I think that the energy gained from solar radiation would stay insulated inside the atmosphere for longer than the time it was initially absorbed. To use a The Price is Right analogy: the Plinko chip takes more time to get off the board than it did to get in due to the relative lack of pegs-- the pegs being other gaseous molecules. That's kind of the way a climate noob like me would like to imagine it at least.

>Also, why would carbon in the atmosphere have a greater heat capacity than carbon in the earth? It's the same amount of mass within the system.

I'm not sure that it's that the atmospheric carbon has a greater heat capacity, it's just that it's more immediately exposed to radiation from the sun.

Hope this was helpful. Anyone who knows better please correct me on this

>>15958099
Honest question, wouldn't the absorbed heat increase the vapor pressure and increase the volume of the atmosphere causing an increase in exit velocity of heat?

>>15911065
So it's a thesaurus detector, nice

>>15958449
Yes.

But the gained effective area would be negligibly small. You would have a larger effect just from the pushback on any hypothetical temperature increase, as radiation emission is nonlinear with temperature

>>15958482
Isn't it nice to get an somewhat smart question?

>>15958465
Give him a break, his IQ is too low to comprehend that

>>15916765
What about if you think things are this simple?

>>15958465
Negative. Rather writingtoiq identifies woman-like niggard brains, detecting those containing compositional similarities to yours. Filtereds - affectionately so-called, probably because lackadaisical attitude, demeanor, incompetence, et cetera - seethe before overwhelmingly, irrefutable intelligence. Shouting, screaming, raging temper tantrums.
Thesaurus! Encyclopedia! Google!
Bewitched devils, delusions gallant and galore.

Then why did volcanoes spewing CO2 into the air during snowball earth cause the ice to recede?

>>15958555
They didn't, any other questions?

>>15958564
this, Milankovitch cycles are what causes warm and cool phases on Earth, not atmospheric gasses

>>15958548
>Harry Potter Obama Sonic Shina Inu

>>15958555
CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas

>>15959513
CO2 doesn't even exist
Alchemy is the Satanism, for devil worshippers who hate humanity

>>15959516
Yup

>>15958860
NPCs are too dumb to understand Milankovitch cycles, you have to have learned about orbital mechanics to see how Milankovitch cycles work

>>15961001
Even people with undergrad astronomy degrees mostly don't have what it takes to comprehend Milankovitch cycles. Multibody orbital mechanics is a pretty specialized subset of that field

>>15959516
CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas

>>15910993
Anyone who did was clearly wrong

>>15962574
Venus.

>>15963883
It's a greenhouse gas on Venus but not on earth because earth is where conservatives want to do whatever.

>>15963894
Which certainly means they aren't conservatives.

>>15963894
>>>/pol/

>>15958465
the iq test gave you a low score so you got angry at it and tried to discredit it by inputting nonsense

>>15965621
When someone scores low on an IQ test they should recognize that they have only themselves to blame, but you have to understand that low IQ people are dumb and they do everything wrong because thats what low IQ people do. If they were smart they'd say "that test says I have low IQ, so maybe I should consider the possibility that the test is correct…", but they aren't smart, they're low IQ, so they don't do what smart people would do

>>15966041
quite a paradox

>>15965621
>>15966041
>Low score
>116 (high intelligence)
>Harry Potter Obama Sonic Shina Inu

>>15968090
116 is a low score, the 100 average include women negores and mexicans

>>15961001
NPCs sadly get taught that orbits are permanent and never change rather than the reality which is that the patterns never repeat themselves and are constantly changing.

>>15968090
116 is low IQ score

>>15910977
>Rather the increase in CO2 concentration is caused by the global warming.
What supposedly release all this carbon into the atmosphere as the temperature grows? And if it's not CO2 then what is causing the heating of the climate?

>>15969693
You are mind-numbingly retard. Do you understand how IQ works? It's a normal distribution with 100 being the average and 15 being the standard deviation. That means that 50% of people score 100 and that 116 is better than 84% of the population. Even your "IQ detector" gives 116 as "high intelligence". Have you had any college level math?

>>15938262
NASA is just like every other "intelligence" agency in america. It exists to lie. There is no such thing as "conspiracy theory" anymore. We're long past that. Now it's just paying attention.

>>15922555
You do know that 125k years ago the Earth was 4°C warmer, right?

>>15923300
>I HATE PLANTS!!!
The post. Well we can tell jews are behind the global warming hysteria.

>>15910993
The goalpost has been kicked into space.

>>15923323
Blue boards are reddit. It is literally impossible to distinguish between troll bait and actual retards. Women post here, after all.

>>15912458
Wow didn't realize the conquistadors colonized south africa.

>>15970058
>It's a normal distribution with 100 being the average
>116 is dumber than 16% of the population.
>Have you ever even had any college level math? shit was SO cash
right and that average includes literal retards as well as women, the mentally ill and a plethora of people who are genetically predispositioned to low iq. so 116 is still a low IQ score.
over 50% of the population gets a college degree these days, its not a mark of intelligence anymore. the "college level math" you're trying to brag about is cringe algebra, trigonometry and calculus that was taught in high school 30 years ago

>>15911025
Are you aware the fossil record exists? Non-paleontologists should not be speaking on global climate.

>>15912277
The modern publishing standard was created by Ghislaine Maxwell's dad.

>>15913923
I've spent enough years shitposting to know whenever someone says "I accept your concession". That's an open admission their view is untenable and they can NEVER produce evidence of being right. There's also a 98% chance it's a woman.

>>15970849
>Y-YOU MUST BE FEMALE!
I accept your concession too.

>>15914402
This. Ice can suck my shit. Flood jew york city and Florida, see if I give a fuck.

>>15914466
Uh-huh. Is that why I have to listen to nuke shills online literally 24/7?

>>15914522
Conservationist here. Dams are literal satan worship. Humans will one day either have to start using the most abundant energy source in the solar system - the sun - or perish.

>>15914888
The reason online dipshits never shut the fuck up about nuclear power and shit all over solar is because 1: they're retards and 2: they're trying to sell a product. Nuclear power requires systems and resources which are difficult to acquire and so highly commodifiable and controllable by the wealthy. Solar energy is hitting the planet constantly in excess every single day since the planet formed and isn't going to stop any time soon. It's harder to commodify, and so, despite it being the overwhelmingly most common source of energy on Earth (nearly 100%), nobody wants to talk about or advance it. It's almost like capitalism is the most inefficient system possible. But don't take my word for it. Just try to pay rent in 2024.

>>15911036
>physical chemistry isn’t related to climate science
lol what?

>>15912110
Give them a break, they haven’t been alive long enough to see the pattern.

>>15916765
The problem here is the claim that "green energy" is going to "save the planet" is a red herring, because CO2 isn't what's killing it. Human overpopulation and the wholesale slaughter of plants and animals everywhere is. Almost every single problem in the modern world blamed on global warming is actually due to spraw and killing vegetation, hunting animals to extinction or just plain pollution in the form of erosion and farm and city fertilizer emptying into the rivers, which then empties into the oceans.

Global warming's "solution" is easy: make "green" bullshit and pass laws to restrict freedoms. Doesn't actually fix anything but it makes the childrapists even more powerful than they already are.

The REAL solution to the current mass extinction event is to scale back human activity, but capitalism is allergic to a lack of growth. Because it's literally cancer.

>>15916796
Hundreds of millions before humans, actually. The ancient bison (the direct ancestor of the american bison) was likely the most abundant megafaunal species in the entire fossil record before humans (which currently hold the title to a retarded degree). Just wait til you hear how many african elephants there were before humans decided "we have to hunt them or they'll get overpopulated".

>>15969712
The ocean, which is also the primary thermal regulator of the planet.

>>15942483
Is it your belief that "basic physics" predicts life on Earth is impossible at the temps that were normal only 125,000 years ago? Sounds to me like physicists need to shut the fuck up about ecology and get back to fiddling with their little fake math "experiments".

>>15942563
>The consensus has been that Human industrialization and their chemical output are causing ecological damage
Correct.

>that then results in climate destabilization
This last part is bullshit and exactly how women lie.

Truth:
"Tom made me mad."

What the woman says to manipulate everyone:
"Tom made me mad...by calling you a nigger, Tyrone!"

Humans are fucking up the planet plenty without ever bringing climate into it. But since we're on the subject, climate isn't just temperatures. It's also MOISTURE. And nobody cares about that, because if you investigate it for more than 5 seconds, you start realizing that clearing away all the vegetation dries out the planet and causes more extreme seasonal variations...almost like what we're seeing.

>>15943128
*soience denial

>>15970856
So you're a woman. I do not accept your presence on my planet.

>>15970930
Besides the fact that's completely made up, it doesn't compare to the amount of cattle being raised globally.

>>15970920
Population just exacerbates the impacts of society. 100 million humans could change the climate just as much as 6 billion humans could. It would just take longer.

>>15970830
You are irreparably retarded and clearly don't understand how a normal distribution works. You should find something other than IQ to try to mog on people. You simply don't have the chops.

>>15971016
>Besides the fact that's completely made up
Just because you don't know something doesn't mean it's not true.

>muh cow farts
Lol I wish they'd do a lot more. Methane's a great greenhouse gas.

I would just like to reiterate that all the women in this thread do not have the first fucking clue about what they're vagsplaining.

>>15970820
>>15970830
>>15970941
>>15971045
^^with possibly >>ANumber of >>MoreShit in between.

Incel must have had some free time in his cell today ^_^

Anyway, the human overpopulation stuff is a bit refreshing for a stale bread such as this one.

>>15971104

>>15971160
the better for you to fritter away hours of your precious youth, my deary

>>15971203

>>15971393
cool story, bro

>>15970906
solar is great for the reasons you said, I'm sure there is research about it. The issue is that it simply is not efficient enough for the ever increasing energy needs of the world. Having panels on your house? Great way to save money. Fields of panels to make a small fraction of what a power plant produces? With higher cost too? Occupying kilometers and kilometers of land and destroying the scenery? Fuck that. Solar is and always will be only a marginal eneegy source unless there's a major tech advance. Prove me wrong (you can't, the data says I'm right unfortunately)

>>15945476
Sure would be nice if physicists would stick to physics and stop trying to horn into ecology which they don't understand the first thing about.

>>15948367
Vagisil, woman. Vagisil.

>>15971831

>>15971851
This isn't ANY kind of excuse. It's already efficient enough to use on a broad scale. And you'll notice all the richers already use it. It's not pushed because it's less profitable.