>>3830763
There is only one thing that defines an ice age and that is ice. I don't seen an extraordinary amount of ice, therefore it is not an ice age.

>>3830779
My friend says that it's not a 'full ice-age', but the Earth is much colder than it is during most periods and that the warming is just natural.

That's what got me thinking and made me realise I know shit all about climate.

>>3830786
There's actually no debate about it. Any credible climatologists agree that the climate is changing and that we are looking at extremely severe consequences in the coming years.

The assholes who like to tell that it ain't so are looking at diminishing income if people demand that we actually do something about it.

>>3830845
What evidence is there supporting current climate change being a man made phenomena?

>>3830845
>assholes
>implying you'd be here without them

>>3830851
I am really too tired to do your research for you. Look it up yourself.

>>3830854
>implying we wouldn't have gone significantly farther without them

>>3830864
>I am really too tired to do your research for you. Look it up yourself.
Well ain't that a cop out if I've ever seen one. Can't give us bullet points or something?

>>3830763
>>Why are there so many polarised opinions?

There are not credible polarized opinions. Most climatologists agree about climate change in general and in the specifics.

But lobbyists like Exxon pay "think tanks" to publish misinformation. The media portrays the debate as two equal sides, because it gets viewers to watch.

>>3830870
not that guy, but do the google, do the google, do the google dance
also tired, West Coast USA master race here.

>>3830874
The whole issue is absolutely ridiculous. How is this allowed to happen?

I read a good book on it once OP. Hunting it down now.

>>3830763
It is true that you are a moron.

>>3830874
mai 2nd post here, that guy hit the nail on the head

The reason /sci/ is not arguing about this is because my fellow americans already passed out after too much alcohol

>>3830763
>Posting Stargate characters on a science board

Sci-fi =/= Science. Take your poser shit away.

>>3830870
I'm just about to go to bed. Round the clock-worked finfag here.

IIRC, NOAA is a pretty reliable source.

Sometimes the truth slips between the lines even from Fox:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjYj6RsQvag

Also, since the insurance companies have to take the truth into account, it should be telling that many of them are worried about the climate change. Worried enough to actually step in and say a few words about it:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=insurance-companies-climate-change
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/thedayside/2011/01/climate-change-insurance-companies-and-criminals.ht
ml

Notice that the second article talks about Swiss Re, so the words are heavy indeed.

OP, take a look at this:
skepticalscience.com/argument.php

http://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm

Regarding polarized opinions, it depends on whose opinions.
Check greenman3610's channel:
youtube.com/user/greenman3610
(for a taste of the issues, search for his videos containing the word "Monckton", a crackpot)

and potholer54's several videos on the topic:
youtube.com/user/potholer54

>>3830893
all true scientists are hard core sci fi fans

therefore all sci fi characters & references to sci fi product are allowed, nay, encouraged on this board, as long as it isn't a refugee discussion from /lit/ or /x/, for instance, and is confined to rational discussion about scientific method or usage in sci fi.

In other words, it is not a priori forbidden

>>3830851
Fractions of per-isotope abundances of carbon in the atmosphere.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases
-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

This is how the climate debate basically is like.

>>3830893
Sci-fi fags don't even pretend sci-fi is about science.

The technology is just to look cool and act as a vessel for the stories and characters. Ironically, soft sci-fi like Star Trek are more about social issues than actual science.

>>3830904
There's no debate over peer-reviewed science that climate change is real

what there is is a republitard and corporatist propaganda media blitz backed by mounds and heaps of bribes to politicians and corporate advertising agencies and paleoconservative "think tanks" and foundations devoted to the Almighty Dollar

also YouTube is hardly a source of anything but basement asshattery

>>3830923
>>3830906
he referred to OPs pic as "stargate" you morons
wasn't even a good troll

1) Climate is changing
2) Climatologists (actual climatologists, not Al Gore) have determined that human actions have very little direct effect on climate, though there still is no consensus on indirect effect.
http://climatequotes.com/2011/02/10/study-claiming-97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-flawed/
3) Both "major" sides are pushing an agenda. Alarmists want everyone to abandon classical fuels (thus money would go to solar panel manufacturers, wind turbine manufacturers, concrete plants etc...), while the other side wants to keep the status quo and is represented mainly by oil/natural gas companies. There is a lot of money at stake here and both sides will lie, badmouth and generally be dicks to get it.
4) Getting actual information is pretty hard and requires you to read through lots of papers put out by climatologists. A few samples:
http://www.space.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/space/forskning/05_afdelinger/sun-climate/full_text_publi
cations/svensmark_2007cosmoclimatology.pdf
http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/9700001.pdf
http://fm1.fieldmuseum.org/aa/Files/lkouwenberg/Kouwenberg_et_al_2005_Geology.pdf

tl;dr: http://www.realclimate.org/

>>3831129
>2) Climatologists (actual climatologists, not Al Gore) have determined that human actions have very little direct effect on climate, though there still is no consensus on indirect effect.

Out and out lies. One side is definitely pushing an agenda, while actual climatogoloists/scientists have issued scientific reports that are contested because the oil companies (mainly but the loss of immediate profits are not limited to just the petroleum industry. >>3831129's source is good but the poster's comments are designed to conceal, rather than reveal

From the same website, different page: Frequently Asked Question 2.1
How do Human Activities Contribute to Climate Change
and How do They Compare with Natural Influences?

Human activities contribute to climate change by causing changes in Earth’s atmosphere in the amounts of greenhouse gases, aerosols (small particles), and cloudiness....The human impact on climate during this era greatly exceeds that due to known changes in natural processes, such as solar changes and volcanic eruptions.
https://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/faq/wg1_faq-2.1.html

>>3831169
>lies
Explain this then:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/open_letter_to_un.html

>>3831199
Science and Public Policy Institute is a project of ALEC, and is a shill for climate denialists and person such as the Koch brothers and the coal mining industry.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute

For info on ALEC see here http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/alec_burns_americans_20110801/

>>3831225
>Ad hominem
You just lost the game

Fuck human advancement MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY

This is why humans are a shit tier race, we are so "evolved" we have the ability to think to ourselves "fuck everyone else, get money"

Green paper.

That we put value on, society could thrive without the need for money and probably better.

>>3831237
It's not an ad hominem when it's an accurate description of what's going on and who's paying for it.

>>3831263
Accusing someone of being biased is ad hominem.

>>3831297
Claiming someone is wrong for committing a fallacy is ad logicam.

Signatories are:
>Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany
Masters degree in Biology, an unrelated field and works at a highschool right now. not a researcher. not even a phd level teacher.
Gerhard Gerlich, refuted by the academic community in germany. Not even a professor, a privately hired teacher, teaching at the TU, not researching.
Horst Malberg, calls himself a professor, but is a professor a.d, which is a title a public employee of a state funded institute gets when he retires from the position. Other than that, no publications or other data can be found on him. Shifty at best.
Stephan Wilksch, Teacher at a minor vocational school. he is an MBA. nothing more to say.

Thats the people from germany. I bet the other signatories are shifty also.

Maybe EK has a good opinion

>>3831297 Accusing someone of being biased is ad hominem.

Don't be absurd. If someone quotes an authority (in this case, the Science and Public Policy Institute), they're making an "appeal to authority" argument. This is only a valid argument if the authority in question is reliable. Pointing out that that authority cannot be trusted on this matter (in this case, because they exist to promote oil company interests) is in no way an ad hominem.

Anyway, if you look at meta-analysis of climatology papers, you see no serious disagreement amongst actual scientists on this issue. The most recent meta-analysis (Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010), found that:

>"97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

That's a direct quote from a peer-reviewed study published in the motherfucking Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States. There is no more reputable a body of scientific inquiry.

>>3831297
It's still not ad hominem when the description is accurate.

If I called you a nazi, taht would probably be ad hominenm. If I called Adolf Hitler a nazi, that would be an accurate description.

Learn the difference.

op just watch potholer54's series on global warming. its basically global warming for /b/ tards, you should be able to handle it.

Theres only a dispute nowdays over global warming because money sharks.

>>3831237
Science and Policy Institute is outed, ad hominem is rebuffed, OP has been led to the light

I say the game is still to me, or should I say, to all/sci/'s honest contributors.

Back to tonight's movie, the BBC serial Smiley's People. I'm in the middle of Part 5, wherein Smiley sets the trap for Karla.

>CO2 is a greenhouse gas : FACT

>Atmospheric levels of CO2 have been rising since we starting the mass combustion of the earths fossil fuel deposits with the onset of the industrial revolution : FACT

>Study finds 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is very likely to be due to human activity

So should we take a huge gamble on the chance that climate change has in fact nothing to do with human activity?

YES!!!

Fuck rationality!

the alyunz wvill szave ust !!

we will brzeez zis oh-zhone phfree aihr of Marzt !!

>>3831359
You're missing the point.
Ad hominem is when you try to discredit someone (a scientist) when you think he is wrong (or lying) instead of disproving his point by using a logical reasoning (science). Would it be a rightful accusation doesn't make it less stupid and irrelevant towards facts.

100% of climate scientists AGREE that climate change is happening.
97-98% say that humans are the prime cause of it.

If you live in America, where polluting corporations have more power than the government, it sometimes seems like those numbers are the opposite.

I always wondered, isn't the most common "greenhouse gas", water vapor?

Wouldn't shifting the temperature up just a small degree cause more water to evaporate, which causes more greenhouse gases, which causes the temperature to rise, which causes more water vapor, which causes more temperature, which causes causes causes overflow error etc.

Why does this not work as an explanation for climate change?

>>3831412
No, *you're* missing the point

There is no "scientific" discussion going on; the debate among scientists was over like 5 years ago, right now the science discussion is whether the turkey will be basted in three hours or three hours forty five minutes.

Yours is the side of disinformation, planted evidence, discredited witnesses, liars, shills, gatekeepers and corporate blood money, and your buddies never heard of or gives a shit about any Oxford debate society rules, so save it.

The science is solid; we are cooking this planet, perhaps irreversibly.

>>3831446
go to this site: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

Observe that that is the "Start Here" page. So start reading, all will be revealed to you and there is a Q& A and a forum and shittons of links to all the relevant data.

Have fun (if it's not too depressing for you)

>>3831412

The point was not "Climate change is happening". The point was "Scientists generally agree that climate change is happening. Showing that a supposed counter example are not actually scientists is not ad hominem, it's directly related to the moot.

lol

>>3831465
>wow, look at all this hippie bullshit

You're that faggot who was here the other day, how do you even have internet in your commune.

>>3831472
3831169 attacked the site that informed about the letter to UN secretary. That was retarded.
3831304 went about it better and said that signators of the letter are morons/corporate tools/whatever.
So the question is if you trust someone on 4chan to provide accurate information about people who oppose his views.
Me, I trust my statistics professor and this little gem he showed me
http://www.slideshare.net/gaetanlion/a-statistical-analysis-of-global-warming

>>3831671
your pic fails to mention that Gore shared his Prize with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which can also be regarded as recognition of the over 1,500 climatologists who contributed to the report

>>3830763
The general consensus among scientists is that we have no idea what is going on. But then politicians on the other hand like to channel their speaches in various directions and there is the little fact that some self proclaimed scientists tend to produce predictions that have no real grounds.

Anthropogenic CO2 makes for about 1-2% of natural CO2 emission. also, the proposed mechanisms as in Kyoto etc. don't do anything in reducing these emissions since Europe and Japan are the only two places that enforce the number of carbon coupons to be correct and so USA that hadn't ratified Kyoto agreement can create coupons in Brazil out of nothing and sell them to EU and Japan steering in billions of $ for nothing. There are several hundred billions of $ that were channeled this way prior to recession. This is all that has happened so far.

There are a lot of people having jobs in institutions that are intended to frighten people into believing we must act and press our politicians to do something about it Propaganda basically-playing on emotions-viewing commercials with children saying we must act now and lying about real numbers. The main one is IPCC which in EU tells the parliament when the governments would pay how much money to them and on the other hand keep spreading the word they are a non-government and therefore a free utility.

Also:
>global warming lasted from 1980 to 1998 and then the eatrth cooled down a little and then heated back up and reached the temperatures of 1998 again in the year 2005. The temperatures didn't change much since then. CO2 on the other hand has been faster thatn preddicted by self proclaimed elite scientist (climate-gate etc.) and we are around 400 ppm and still no horrific climatic change has been linked to it. It was enforced that catastrophies become constant and imminent once we surpassed 35'0 ppm.

>>3831472
Dude what?

CLIMATE CHANGE IS ALLWAYS HAPPENING !!1!1111111!!!!!111one ONE one

FUCK YEAH CAPSLOCK

Look at the temperatures before the 80's and even before that. Temperatures keep constantly changing in every graph u find unless you look at the IPCC propaganda that shows everything is constant and the only time something changes is a little after we industrialized ourselves. The entire concept of anthropogenic global warming that was the original theory is long abandoned since earth is cooling lately (just by a little but still) and we are now saying climate change. That one cannot be denied scientifically but the actions being done in this name and also the way people are being emotionally maniulated in believing is propaganda. Good old WW2 nazism and post WW2 USA advertisement.

>>3831598
>hippie bullshit
Yes, that's a common ad hominem used by climate change denialists.

This pic is a bit over the top, but the manga was amazing.

>>3831996

what manga is this

>>3832017
A somewhat depressing, somewhat awesome one-off named Hotel.
Online reader here:
http://www.mangafox.com/manga/hotel/v01/c001/1.html

It was one of the first things posted in /sci/ ever.

>>3831996
> mentions manga
> no name, no link

I helped develop some of the simulations and optimization programs to help decide carbon tax policy. I can assure you these people are not thinking about the environment. The variables we were minimizing or maximizing all had dollar signs in front of them.

>>3832056
Many climatologists have criticized carbon tax as a bad and inefficient way to force the issue.

And for good reason.

Our CO2 emissions are so powerful that they are warming OTHER PLANETS! Come on guys, obviously global warming is reals!121

>>3832039
see
>>3832032

>that ending
bawwwwing like a motherfucker

>>3832056
>implying the programs were in perl

>>3832032
seconded. ending made me cry.

Another good future manga, capturing the wistful slow decline of civilization, is Yokohama Kaidashi Kikou.

The only reasonable answer is that climate is TOO complicated to be predicted and thus all models are bullshit.

>>3832107
So is brownian motion but we described a mathematical theory of that, faggot.

>>3831861
Way to suck his and the IPCCs (corrupt) dick.

>>3832134
:D

>>3831996
>climate change denialists.
Are they like holocaust denialists?

Also here >>3831972 and here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-w
orst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html