Russians Behind DNC attack!

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Jarnauga [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Damn that's a lot more than "79 selected scientists" is it..?

See ? i did all the work that you the free-thinking-no-bias-patriot should have done, and it took me 10 minutes. Granted that it's longer than going on infowars and reading a 200 words "article".

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Jarnauga]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Nihilist_santa]

Ugh climate change?!?

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Daywolf]

You conveniently left out:

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

WSJ: The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'
[/URL]

Also:

"Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous."

Originally Posted by Jarnauga [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[url]

Damn that's a lot more than "79 selected scientists" is it..?

See ? i did all the work that you the free-thinking-no-bias-patriot should have done, and it took me 10 minutes. Granted that it's longer than going on infowars and reading a 200 words "article".

If you and Lune note, that wasn't "infowars" I pulled that from, I sourced it moments before you replied and plenty of time for Lune to notice before his fail fail meme. And when have I EVER linked the infowars website into this forum? Never once, dumbass.

Yeah that's all a farce, a myth, they invented it. The American Meteorological Society doesn't even believe it, and the rest is all/mostly fabricated.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

1. They are using thousands of years of climate data to compare the last 150 years to the last few thousand, which tells us what is happening now is very rare and corresponds to what we should be expecting given models and the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.

2. We know the mechanics of the Greenhouse Effect-- we know that increasing concentrations of certain gasses in the atmosphere trap heat and result in a Ruth Bader Ginsberg machine of side effects and feedback loops that ultimately result in higher temperatures and/or warmer oceans. We see this play out on Venus, which has a runaway greenhouse effect, and Mars, which has none at all. We see it in Earth's history through fossil records and chemical analysis of ancient samples. Obviously there are all kinds of different properties on those planets but it's just a simple example. (90% confidence interval here)

3. We know that the dramatically increasing concentration of greenhouse gasses are due to human-related emissions.

150 years is particularly significant because the changes we've observed rarely happen so rapidly.

In that boldes piece are you suggesting that we atully have a model that accurately predicts temperature changes? ^^ Just 2 years ago, UW published a study was published, concluding the climate has been warming throughout the Holocene, the exact opposite of a study from the year before. This of course while observations show cooling and models indicate warming.

That's just one example. Of course it is science at work, but it is far from conclusive. Climate science is also the only branch of science that is heavily politicized. There are heavily vested interests on both sides.

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ugh climate change?!?

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yep, I agree. Most that are still holding to the myth of man made dangerous climate change/global warming, well they are impenetrable pawns of the globalists in the majority of cases. If it were true, I'd be all over it, but it's not. I refuse to augment reality to bend fact to fitting into some personal political narrative. And people that do that, generally are unreachable through that specific topic. The narrative is from money, power and world-view, not science. It is ugh to bother, yes.

[Jarnauga]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You conveniently left out:



If you and Lune note, that wasn't "infowars" I pulled that from, I sourced it moments before you replied and plenty of time for Lune to notice before his fail fail meme. And when have I EVER linked the infowars website into this forum? Never once, dumbass.

Yeah that's all a farce, a myth, they invented it. The American Meteorological Society doesn't even believe it, and the rest is all/mostly fabricated.

You're sure about that..? :

https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cf...limate-change/

global climate has changed over the past century and will continue to change in the future. It is based on the peer-reviewed scientific literature and is consistent with the vast weight of current scientific understanding as expressed in assessments and reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Although the statement has been drafted in the context of concerns in the United States, the underlying issues are inherently global in nature.

Climate is always changing. However, many of the observed changes noted above are beyond what can be explained by the natural variability of the climate. It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide. The most important of these over the long term is CO2, whose concentration in the atmosphere is rising principally as a result of fossil-fuel combustion and deforestation.

Conclusion:

There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate. To inform decisions on adaptation and mitigation, it is critical that we improve our understanding of the global climate system and our ability to project future climate through continued and improved monitoring and research. This is especially true for smaller (seasonal and regional) scales and weather and climate extremes, and for important hydroclimatic variables such as precipitation and water availability.

Technological, economic, and policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of future impacts of climate change. Science-based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. National and international policy discussions should include consideration of the best ways to both adapt to and mitigate climate change. Mitigation will reduce the amount of future climate change and the risk of impacts that are potentially large and dangerous. At the same time, some continued climate change is inevitable, and policy responses should include adaptation to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in accounting for our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life.

[This statement is considered in force until August 2017 unless superseded by a new statement issued by the AMS Council before this date.]

You're becoming an expert at newspeak ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by Jarnauga [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You're sure about that..?

Yep, I am.

It's all manipulated. Just like my point everything coming out of the globalist government is a lie when dealing with numbers. Be it global warming and the hockey stick lie, to the made up unemployment numbers and how really great things are. Even the situation with Russia, which the globalists are inventing for purposes of creating an evil entity to get people to rally around the globalists to fight/resist (just like Orwell's 1984), and in this case also take the heat off their friends/creation the Jihadists.

And before you say conspiracy theory, that was years ago, now this is all overt, just as much as the DNC was nothing but a Clinton stooge which has become proven. They don't deny it, just blame Russia, of which they have been building up for a WAR. Even NATO has come out and said that a hack can lead to them retaliating with a military strike. This is all a set-up.

[Jarnauga]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yep, I am.

It's all manipulated. Just like my point everything coming out of the globalist government is a lie when dealing with numbers. Be it global warming and the hockey stick lie, to the made up unemployment numbers and how really great things are. Even the situation with Russia, which the globalists are inventing for purposes of creating an evil entity to get people to rally around the globalists to fight/resist (just like Orwell's 1984), and in this case also take the heat off their friends/creation the Jihadists.

So you stand by your statement that "The American Meteorological Society doesn't even believe it" even though i just provided a link from The American Meteorological Society that clearly states they believe in human made global warming ..?

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by big_ole_jpn [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

150 years of climate data is not all we have. Atmospheric concentrations of gases can be extrapolated from data taken from rock/soil layers as has already been mentioned in this thread. I'd elaborate further but I'm sure Moloch's servants will just parrot a mistrust for these methods either way.

Sure, we can increase the amount of data based on info from ice or sea bed cores to produce graphs like this

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

10,000 years out of

500,000,000


Do you feel more confident about the statistical significance of that sample?