Guess it's that time again.
Here's the basics of the science behind AGCC; http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
The Working Group 1 report above is the physical science basis behind this. Yes, it's a heavy, dense document, but you can't trim it down any shorter without cutting out critical data. If you want the easier-to-read glossed-over highlights, the Summary for Policymakers document listed there is what you want. If you have further questions, you can dig into the full report. Whole thing is free and open-access.
If you want a simple visual, and before anyone says "what about volcanoes" or whatnot, here;
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/20...ing-the-world/
A nice visual graphing of the various factors that could affect climate forcing, graphed against the actual warming trend. Skip to the end if you want the important bit; that the only vector that's significant is anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, and that when you combine that with the (most neutral or depressive) other vectors, the resulting projection is pretty much dead-on observed warming.
Climate change denial is precisely as counterfactual and willfully ignorant as insisting the Earth is flat, or that the moon landings were faked. And yes, saying "I don't dispute that climates change, just that we're responsible" [i]is[i] "climate change denial".
DO YOU HAVE A BRAIN!?!?!?!
i said there is climate change(does not equal warming) AS THERE HAS BEEN FOR MILLION OF FUCKING YEARS!!!!!!!!! as this planet has had Ice ages and periods WAY WARMER THEN NOW. to think we have a impact on that is stupid.
ALSO PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME THE FEW SCIENTIST WHO said the planet is getting colder because of global warming *i am serius a scientist said this*
THE WHOLE THING IS BUNK AND ABOUT MONEY!
GET YOUR HEADS OUT OF YOUR ASSES, it;s a scam to make money 20-30 years ago it was OMG SAVE DAH PLANET AS WE HAVE GLOBAL COOLING!
but man made global warming is a SCAM!
Last edited by Arthas242; 2015-11-20 at 03:27 PM.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/1...lobal-cooling/
http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...climate-talks/
http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/28/st...cooling-ahead/
look i can post random stuff to?
WE HAVE NO IDEA what is going on, we are stupid to think we can predict man made global warming when we can't even predict the weather 24 hours ahead 100% of the time
remember the sea levels would flood all the coastlines by 2015 8 years ago? last i check things are still the same
Last edited by Arthas242; 2015-11-20 at 03:38 PM.
Yelling really loudly that it's obvious that the Earth is flat doesn't make your position any more credible, dude.
The climate hasn't changed at anything like the current rate, at any point in the past, where natural causes were the only ones in play. Plus, if natural causes alone were the only ones affecting climate, we'd be cooling right now.
I mean, sure, I guess you can try and claim that basically all the thousands of climate scientists around the world, in every country, are all somehow part of the same global conspiracy, for no benefit whatsoever, and without any record of such collaboration, and with no identifiable purpose, but it sure seems silly to claim that this is the more realistic or reasonable option.
2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"
Richard Lindzen of the CATO Institute. So, consider the source. He's a fossil fuel industry shill, and has been for a long time.
He's made many claims that have been debunked over and over and over again.
Here is a short list over the past years of him being debunked:
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...ence-integrity
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...n-in-newsweek/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...oint-by-point/
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Pu...dillo_2008.pdf
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...hol-testimony/
http://www.desmogblog.com/lindzen-sl...ble-scientists
I love how deniers pull this line to try and cast off the title of denier. "Climate change" has become near synonymous with anthropogenic climate change, and "natural climate change" is used when you are referring to natural processes.
If you want to play the "who's profiting more from climate change politics" game, we can do that. Republican pundits always scream "follow the money!"
So we did.
Liberal politicians are being paid small amounts, conservatives are being paid hundreds of billions, if not trillions in total, and scientists are getting paid their salary.
Meanwhile we have some of the more prominent scientists in the field telling us they've been approached and offered hundreds of thousands of dollars to not publish studies.
If my sole motivation was money, I'd be all aboard the denial train. Their benefactors have far deeper pockets.
I'm glad that my conscience allows me to care more about my descendant's future than some extra cash in my pocket.
2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"
Global - not just Indiana.
Please tell me, with specifics, what is "bad" about the models.
This just makes you look like a nutter. Do you have any data to support your position? Of course you don't.
Anyone who took a chemistry class in college should be able to understand the concepts of rates.
“You know, it really doesn’t matter what the media write as long as you’ve got a young, and beautiful, piece of ass." - President Donald Trump
Do we really need to pull out opensecrets and various economic studies to know that there's been enormous amounts of money finding its way into the pockets of deniers over the last couple of decades.
I'll give you a couple of hours to do your own homework (Google is hard to use and I want my students to learn how to use it), and if you fail I can point you in the right direction.
2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"
Way to miss the forest for the trees.
The simple fact is that there are think tanks established to push climate change denial, whose sole funding purpose is to manufacture a false sense of debate.
Actual scientists don't get paid anything to back a given theory. Not one red cent. They get paid their normal salaries, which they draw as academics or researchers, but none of that requires a specific conclusion to come out of their work, unlike those think tanks.
The IPCC is a good example; all contributors to the IPCC's reports are volunteers. They're paid nothing for their participation. They do it because the work is important.
There's essentially no money that's spent in backing anthropogenic climate change, specifically. The money people point to isn't earmarked for AGCC research, it's money paid to researchers to do whatever research they're interested in. AGCC theory comes out of that because it's literally the only model that makes any sense at all, given the data we have.
For instance; I'm working on an RAship this term, writing a primer on climate change adaptation. The money I get paid is to do research and produce justifiable and empirically valid conclusions, whatever those might be. If I could actually "prove" that AGCC was a fraud, I'd be lauded. I'd be a freaking celebrity. There's no way I'm going to pull that off, but the reason I can't is because the data backing AGCC theory is so thick and dense and conclusive that it's a titanic proposition. If I had the right stone to kill that giant, the entire scientific community would back me. That's how science works.
Last edited by Endus; 2015-11-20 at 04:07 PM.