It somehow got political, so everyone's yelling at each other and everyone cares more about winning arguments than finding out what the fuck is going on.

The climate changes slowly over time, like it always has.

However, I think you mean Global Warming. Global Warming is a giant hoax cooked up to sell massive amounts of green products and fund the UN. Anyone who still believes in it is a victim of the liars that profit from this scam.

>>6521068
What do you mean, "somehow"? It was pretty obvious someone was going to try to exploit it for their own purposes(algore)

>>6521068
This.
This is what happens when you bring non-scientists into the fold.
It started out as a "Hey, ya know, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, maybe we should check and see if the extra CO2 released by human activity is doing anything" then there was "Well, wouldja look at that, there has been a very slight increase in temperatures, which was to be expected with the increase of insulating gas, hypothesis confirmed! Drinks all round!"
The natural step after that was "Hey, I wonder if this change in temperature would have any effect on temperature dependent weather systems"
And that's when shit hit the fan. We haven't had an objective answer to that one yet. Some reporter got a hold of it and it became the next Y2K replacement.

>>6521096
>fund the UN.
I lol'd. Good show.

>>6521096

And in the meantime, milliners worldwide increase their tinfoil orders.

>>6521114

Well, you know, you'd think when it comes to the question of the vast majority of the world population getting fucked in the ass that we could find a bit of unanimity, but I suppose that was being a bit idealistic.

why doesn't the world just work

>>6521096

Uh, no. Global climate change is a natural phenomenon that happens over thousands of years, but humanity is fucking with the climate. I live in New England and it was 70 degrees F today. SEVENTY DEGREES FAHRENHEIT. It's December. This shit ain't normal, and this is certainly not something that is supposed to be happening.

>>6521117
It has had an effect. Mosquitos for example have begun to spread to areas they used to avoid because those areas now warm enough for them

No idea, but it's December 3rd - and we just had our first snowfall of winter. It's been 50-60 degrees until today.

ITT people don't watch the news

The reason this scam will keep on going is because Americans will believe whatever the TV tells them. I support it 100%. Exploit stupid people for their tax dollars? fuck yes, how do I get in on this?

>>6521173
>I live in New England and it was 70 degrees F today. SEVENTY DEGREES FAHRENHEIT. It's December. This shit ain't normal, and this is certainly not something that is supposed to be happening.
Anecdotal evidence, bra.
Measured climate change for this period is only like half a degree warmer than the average.

Scientists (nearly all of whom agree that climate change is happening) had to start using "climate change" instead of "global warming", because idiots though that "global warming" meant everyplace will get warmer.

No, idiots, the average global temperature is increasing at an accelerated pace as compared to the data we have from the past (accounting for hundreds of thousands of years from things such as ice cores). While it's only a few degrees *on average*, the result is that weather patterns change, sea currents change, and regional climate patterns change. Those changes can seriously fuck things up, and that's bad for us.

>>6521154
i just did an article on global warming and apparently the world DOES work. according to a guy i interviewed the globe is actually getting colder in the next 20 years (thats gonna fuck up crops in the north, he said).

he also said the CO2 emmissions is bullshit. humans liberate 6 billion tons every year and the earth recycles 200 billion tons every year, giver or take some 40 billion. that means the the human effect on the CO2 level is nothing but a statistical mistake.

>>6521173

Here in Cali, we got our first snow in october. In the bay area. It's been colder then ever here.

>>6521173

Were going through a global warming cycle. It's completely natural.

You need to watch the news. Watch news from all sides and try to look for some unbiased sources as well, and you'll see the story about the hacked emails that expose the global warming scam.

>>6521206

Considering I've lived here for the majority of my life, I can tell you for a fact that 70 degrees is unnatural this time of year. Usually we've had one or two snowfalls by now. Even last year we already had several inches on the ground.

The simple facts of the matter are these.
First, human activity produces lots of airborne CO2 in the measure of tons.
Second, CO2 is an insulating gas, AKA a greenhouse gas. These types of gasses increase the heat retention of a system.
Third, weather systems are highly dependent on temperature.

What we need to ask ourselves is that the temperature increase brought on by human activity, which there most certainly is, is large enough to have significant effects on weather.
If you "disbelieve" in anthropogenic global warming, then must therefore believe that the amount of temperature increase brought on by man's activity is less than that needed to change the environment.
Believing that CO2 does not change the global temperature is asinine and not up to debate.

It's basically been revealed to be one huge fraud. It was created by the Government-Academia complex to justify more regulations and government grants.

Scientists agreed that we caused it.

Politicians and journalists didn't.

Nothing is going on. It's all a fraud.

>>6521252
>implying there is a vast conspiracy to spread lies
You don't belong in this thread. Go start a HURR COMMIES R OUT TO GIT UZ threads

>>6521277

Politicians created it, brotimus prime.

>>6521267
haha another libertarian trying to prove his conspiracy theory

To all of your who say this is a fraud, why are there no climate scientists that want to make a name for themselves by offering irrefutable evidence to the contrary?
Is there some shadowing cabal of climatologists silence any of their ilk that dare disagree?

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17187

The Earth can take a shitton more CO2 than we will EVER dish out. Man made global warming is a fucking hoax and a scam.

>>6521320
yes
Just like the Evilution Cabal there is a Global Warming Cabal

There's basically 1 camp for the scientific field for this: AGW occurs, but we don't know exactly to what extent the damage will occur, we do know that it's not good, however, and so we should work to slow/stop it

There's 2 camps for the anti-AGW crowd:
The ones that are rolling with the punches are in the "global warming happens but its natural because we humans couldn't possibly be causing it" camp

And the ones late to the party are the "global warming doesn't exist because it snowed early this year lol"

The latter camp also tends to think the world is 6000 years old.

>>6521334
It's true, we had Crazy Cabal Country Club meeting last week. We talked about how to better hold down knowledge while jugging some brewskis. We're talking about getting NASA to go back to the Aristotelian version of astronomy. Shit would be so spheres.

>>6521325
this is just paranoid prejudice

>>6521354
>And the ones late to the party are the "global warming doesn't exist because it snowed early this year lol"
What of the "global warming is true because it was unseasonably warm this week" crowd?

>>6521374
Why do people think sarcasm disproves anything?

>>6521387
what of the "there's a big conspiracy between the government and academics" crowd?

>>6521320
Yes. This has been shown by the hacked emails.

>>6521320
Scientists who oppose global warming receive way less funding. That's what happens when you are reliant on government grants. You can't question the official story. Fortunately the private sector has been picking up the tab and funding climate skeptics.

>>6521399
Because it shows how paranoid you are. You really do believe there is a vast conspiracy across the globe to surpress research.

>>6521387
They are also idiots, but they're right for the wrong reason.

>>6521410
The hacked emails showed nothing of the sort, but keep on hangin' on to that hope.

>>6521411
That's just like any other fringe theory. Creationists don't get funding and neither do holocaust deniers

>>6521430

Have you ever realized how much profit there is to be made off of touting man made global warming? It's a fucking shitload.

I love how global warming believers act just like religious people when their faith is questioned.

>>6521411
>rivate sector has been picking up the tab and funding climate skeptics.
Haha, no.
We can all be assured that it is private sector corporations, whose only function is to make a profit, who will produce unbiased data.

>>6521461
Fringe theory? You don't how science works do you?
Likening counter-AGW study to holocaust deniers and creationism is ridiculous.

>>6521470
THIS
Green energy would produce shitloads of jobs in America. If global warming doesn't exist those jobs go out the window. This is why unions are trying to push the global warming lie

Right wingers: I AM A PROUD MURIKAN WHO BELIVES DA MIDDLE EATS HAS LOTS O TURRISTS WE HAFTA FIGHT

Left wingers: OMG YOU FUCKING FASCIST, SCIENTISTS NEVER TELL LIES. GLOBAL WARMING IS HAPPENING NOW BECAUSE OF OUR EVIL CO2 DEATH MACHINES, I TRUST AL GORE BAWWWWWWWWWW

Lol amerikkka

>>6521497
Actually I do know how science works and part of it is that a theory needs proof. There is no proof on the global warming deniers side

Also you "skeptics" are exactly like creationists and holocaust deniers. Both groups try to justify their ideology against fact

>>6521470
Do you realize how much profit is at stake for the current corporations?
Do you think that Podunk Greenleaves Ltd. as as much sway as GM or Haliburtan or any of the many other companies that profit from non-green sources.
Do you think coal companies like being labeled dirty?
If you believe that it is the green push that is "proving" global warming, you must also admit that the other side is pushing as well.
And they have so much more money and lobbyist than any green corp.

>>6521550

That's right man! You tell that neo-nazi creationist conservative what's right. But don't forget to buy carbon credits and BUY GREEN. You need to invest in GREEN products. Also, please tell your friends to invest in GREEN products and remember, your money will help us SAVE THE EARTH from the evils of CO2. Never give up the fight against global warming and never ever stop BUYING GREEN.

>>6521550
I'm on your side bro, you're saying what I'm saying.
What I meant was that both sides have been researched and the result was pretty much unanimous.

I'm skeptical that science exists.

>>6521497
No, anti-AGW is not science because it doesn't follow the scientific method, just like creationism.

This is not science (but IS how "creation science", "intelligent design" and "anti-AGW" are done):

- It is true that (x)
- Now, let us go find information that supports (x)

Science is:
- I think that perhaps (y)
- If (y) were to be true, then if we perform experiment (e) the resultant data would be (data)

[scientific team performs experiment (e) and gets data (data)]

Then one of two things happens:
"Hey (data) is like we expected, that supports the idea that (y) is true. Let's do some more experiments to confirm" [loop to beginning of process]

- or -

"Hm, (data) doesn't support (y), but I wonder if (y1) is true, based on this data" [loop to beginning of process]

I think people should be put in jail and castrated for denying global warming. Our industry will suffer if this myth is not pervasive in the minds of our consumers.

>>6521585
Oil Tycoon here
This post is a trick being used by the Eco-Nazis to kill innocent babies! If we don't stop them earth be dead!

I really hate people who debate on scientific topics with anecdotal evidence and not much prior knowledge of the theory...

>>6521609
We seem to be mistaken here.
What I meant by that comment is that counter-argument is essential to the scientific method. To every hypothesis, the counter hypothesis should also be tested.
What I'm saying is that anti-AGW claims are indeed being studied and the results have been mostly negative.

>>6521550
Can't have proof when groups refuse to release their data sets, and other groups fudge the numbers to make it look pretty. When public institutions refuse FOIA requests for methodology anyone who has even the basic understanding of the scientific method should be questioning it.

But nah. Peer review be damned...full fail train ahead into the pacific. We're just gonna run with this policy of wealth redistribution. The entire thing is a mess. Global warming/Climate change whatever the hell people are calling it these days is half pseudo-religion half-politics with a sprinkling of science to keep the masses amazed at the techno wizardry of the geeks in the room.

so global warming is a lie

does this mean that i can rev a hopped up diesel pickup that sounds like a big rig and emit copious amounts of black smoke, and NOT feel guilty?

>>6521664
Let's be honest, if we left all the discussion to the experts we wouldn't have this problem. Science is not a democracy. An anthropologist has no say whatsoever on the matters of climatology, yet when these "lists of global warming deniers" show up, it's almost all people with degrees that aren't even relevant. Physicists are smart, but they know jack shit about meteorology.

Pretty much every major scientific institution supports Global Warming and I believe in science

>>6521660

>HE STILL THINKS THE WEALTHY ELITE DON'T PROFIT OFF VARIOUS INDUSTRIES LIKE BIG OIL AND GREEN PRODUCTS

>>6521689
Don't bother arguing with the Green Cult they'll never catch on to the conspiracy. It's just like the Sex Ed Society(which has convinced people it's normal for boys to masturbate. sick huh?)

Hey libs, please explain why the ice caps on mars are also melting

>>6521689
Let's clear up a couple things, since obviously you're operating from talking points:

The "trick" that people talk about is one of many ways that statisticians make graphs easier to grasp for non-mathematicians. If I put a regression line on a graph to show a trend, its the same sort of thing. Furthermore, the "trick" ended up not being used anyway.

The "peer review" bit is also blown out of proportion. The researchers in the hacked emails were having a problem with the editors of a particular journal, and one suggested they simply not submit papers to that journal anymore. That's not suppression of peer-review, that's just people choosing to publish elsewhere.

While I agree with you that people should want to release their data sets to the public *if* they are funded by public funds, the same data would be as useless for the current rabblerousers as "publishing every bill 30 days before a vote" would be to teabaggers (and its no surprise that the anti-AGW folks cross over heavily with the teabaggers -- we call them "Freepers" for short).

Tempest in a teapot. Out of tens of thousands of pages of emails and notes, a half-dozen commments have been pulled out and placed out of context to support a political agenda. You're either stupid enough to fall for it, or amoral enough to support it. Either way, become an hero.

>>6521785
and don't get me started on those who like the missionary position!

those gross fucks!

>>6521761
No, you believe in scientific institutions. To you, science is a religion, not a method of inquiry. Please kill yourself.

>>6521793
You sir are retarded. You're just like the Baby Killers who try to say sperm cells can't feel pain

>>6521788
hurrr durrrrblx

Intelligence Tier:

GOD EMPEROR TIER: Wealthy Elite

High tier: Manipulative politicians

Mid tier: Scientist tools

Low tier: Perpetrators and Businessmen

Shit tier: The consumer

>>6521788
SHUT UP NAZI GO PRAY TO JEEBUS THEN INVADE IRAQ FOR OIL!!!!

>>6521834
No you shithead, I'm talking about the European Academy of Sciences and Arts, InterAcademy Council, International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences, Network of African Science Academies, National Research Council, European Science Foundation, American Geophysical Union, European Federation of Geologists, American Meteorological Society and groups like that.

>>6521793
Good talking points, do you have anything original that hasn't been parroted by someone with more than three firing neurons?

I actually didn't mention the trick, but I know how line regression works. Here let me add in something else. When you're calculation on nth values, and doing regression on them with composite value overlays what do you suppose happens to the original data over time? I give you cookies if you get the correct answer.

Start doing a bit more digging you'll find that CRU has pulled 8 papers recently because of peer review abuse. That is in, and above abuse of the process and abuse by people to get past the normal process.

That's a very convenient argument, however you need to realize that FOIA requests have been on-going for years. There's no reason they couldn't have been released already, except that they refused to release the datasets, mapping values, corrected & uncorrected data(which was destroyed), and so on. They have no one else to blame on that.

A tempest in a tea pot is greenies saying "the science is settled," while they were saying the same thing for the last 100 years in various guises. Only becoming more shrill in the 1970's when they thought half the earth was going to become a giant frozen ball of ice and we need to pollute more to stop it. Yeah we've been here before too.

Yeah don't worry, that's why there's several dozen internal and external reviews going on right now. The ones you're hearing about are for the public eye. The ones you're not hearing about, are the ones where these guys are already sweating their balls off. Just ask why Mann threw his buddy Jones under the bus yesterday, and you'll have your answer.

>>6521911
Thank you for proving my point. Read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

and never post again

;;;;; planet is dying.... soon polar bears wont be able to live=[ what will we do about it?! i think al gore should tax us all until the whole economy collapses then no more pollution will occur and we can all live happy in our huts =) thank god for al gore and his personal jet flying around the world telling us how to save ourselves i know i can sleep much better now that we have such devoted saviors

>>6521946

Saying that every major bipartisan scientific institution holds a consistent stance, when the issue is one so complex that some deference must be paid to expert opinion, is a pretty fucking compelling argument from authority.

I don't know which side is right, but I think the case for GW is a lot weaker than its proponents make it sound.

Hell, the GW church even sells indulgences in the form of carbon credits.

>>6521946
Yeah well I'm going to assume that if a variety of different scientific organizations which are composed of trained scientists with accurate data all come to the same conclusion, than that conclusion has some value. If you're just too brainwashed to see otherwise, go fuck yourself.

Why is it so hard to agree that lowering pollution is a good thing?

Ok, to sum up, climate change is definitely happening, but to which extent is debatable, albiet ther eare a lot of different projections. There is NO scientific controversy. The "controversy" about global warming is simply a vocal NUTJOB minority that stations like Fox News and such give credence to. Why, just the other day I saw Pat Buchanan on the tube saying that global warming is just an excuse to tax, etc. Do not believe what anyone says unless it is coming from a research paper from a RESPECTED institution like a top tier University.

For anyone who is interested I work at the Energy Biosciences Institute at UIUC where we are exploring miscanthus x giganteus as a possible source of ethanol in the midwest. lululul.

>>6522156

Because that's what liberals want to do. And if you're a conservative, you gotta hate whatever liberals support, and turn it into something sinister and deceitful so you can get other people to also hate liberals for supporting it.

It's not about facts, it's about petty political hatreds.

>>6521931

The original data disappears, BUT since that trick WASN'T USED it's irrelevant.

Pulling papers because of peer-review abuse was the point. CRU doesn't peer-review the papers, you dolt, they pulled papers because peer-review abuse was being used against them by editors that had an axe to grind. CRU doesn't peer-review anything on their own.

>Only becoming more shrill in the 1970's when they thought half the earth was going to become a giant frozen ball of ice and we need to pollute more to stop it. Yeah we've been here before too.
Myth: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/
http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2008/10/the_great_global_cooling_myth.html
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/10/global-cooling-was-a-myth.html
http://enviroknow.com/2009/10/27/associated-press-statisticians-reject-global-cooling/

And here's the funniest thing of all. Even if everything you say about CRU is true, there's many, many, many other datasets and studies that support the idea of AGW.

It's a losing argument, on your part. You just need to find yourself another holy cause to crusade against that give you even a chance of being *correct*, much less succeed in defeating the opposition.

>>6521149
well, it would be the case if the threat was real
it isn't

aliens show up and start blowing things up? pretty sure we'd bury the hatchets

>>6522297

What isn't real about it? You don't think we're in a warming trend? Or you don't think that human activity contributes to warming in any way....?

>>6522238
ok
all those diverse data sets, do they point out the fact that heating trends LEAD carbon dioxide release by a hundred years or more?
what about the fact that, at several points in the earth's history where CO2 was at a much higher density in the atmosphere, the temperature change was slim? (something like 1 degree)

regardless of your support for this idiocy or not, china and the rest of the developing world REFUSE to put a cap on emissions while the west is expected to pay "climate debt", its fucking madness and only clueless head in the sand liberals would still support such an unfair and unequal proposal

el nino

>>6522016
You mean all the same organizations who've used various data sets and have had need to double back and recheck data. See here's the unique irony in paleoclimatology right now. If you're on one end, you get lots of money especially if you're screaming about the end. On the other you get next to no money. As well as a researcher for every 3 of you there's enough grant money to keep 1 gainfully employed. Now you figure out what happens in a field where there's an over abundance of people working. You're arguing on a moot point, as there is no consensus. People from various fields disagree from statisticians, to geologists and yeah they both have as much pull in that area as their research data is used in creating those pretty graphs.

>>6522238
Actually the trick was used. Now go get your own special type of excel or if you can't go find a reputable site that will allow real time plotting on 3 axis and start plotting out the numbers for the last 20,000 years or so. You can get them anywhere. Now minus nth values you see that there isn't swings via 'corrected data' minus the fudged stuff via other sample sets like flaming trees in russia, or other anomalous data like the stuff coming out of NZ for the last 20 years. And since we can't properly account for the data in the US right now either because some of that has been 'corrected over time' by various organizations we need to wait to ensure that those are properly calculated. Now when you plot those out on a standard graph what do you get. Climb, drop, climb, drop, level, drop, drop level, climb, spike, etc, etc.

Basic stuff. Last 20 years? Climb drop, level, drop. Drop climb. Median difference? 0.1 +/- 0.2%.

Oh and linking to realclimiate isn't exactly a good way to prove anything. You might know that they're the same guys in the CRU mess right now. NewScientist has been a sentationalist rag for the last 5-7 years or so, and nature is getting pretty bad too.

But with regards to the freezing ball of ice, you seem to be missing the point. Environmentalists were making the same call 30ish years ago, based on poor climate modeling. Mass backpedaling ensues, and now every idiot with half a dozen braincells says 'well no, not really,' well yes really. They tried to scare the hell out of the public then too. I'm actually old enough to have lived through the tail end of that stuff and remember it, not to mention having some of that rammed down my throat in school.

Actually it's not a losing argument on my part. The question still remains is it man or natural cycles. That's the question, the environmentalists who want you to live in a cave without your computer and no internnet will scream it's all YOUR fault. Those of us with a bit of sanity want more data, or some data.

Yeah this is fun stuff don't think anything is finished/settled whatever. It's not, nor is anything complete/done/ended. Wake me up in 100 years, climatology is in it's infancy still. 250m years ago when the co2 count was 100x higher in both the oceans and land there was 250x the biodiversity as there is now. Just a fun fact.

>>6524033
>>6524058
oh, hi there, how are you respectable individual?

>>6524640
Good. I require short bread cookies for fuel!