Is climatology a science?

Honestly, I won't. The last link was so embarrassing that I'm done with you. IIRC, surge.sh is some easy/cheap hosting service, so this is literally less effort than baur-research.com. That guy at least registered a domain for his schizo shit.

It's true tho. You guys can't nail anything on the head. Like I said, it's just kinda "if we add more of this to the mix, we'll get more that". Like eh, that's an insult to real science.
Give us numbers that don't make me question if my truck isn't big enough to finally put NYC 20ft under, cause so far it's been fake results after fake results. Did you even predict this recent ozone hole? If so, how far in advance? After it was already inevitable?

>REEEEEEEEEEEE it's hard ok
>But we're never wrong because all our analysis is retroactive
>We don't predict, we only project
>THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED OKAY, THIS WILL HAPPEN IF WE DONT ACT **NOW**

You.

>it's just kinda "if we add more of this to the mix, we'll get more that"
Wrong. Let me know when you're done making shit up based on your lack of understanding of the topic being discussed.

>Give us numbers that don't make me question
No one cares about your reaction to the data. No one needs to cater to your special needs. The data has already been provided in this thread. You have no excuses.

>so far it's been fake results after fake results
You haven't even looked at the results.

>Did you even predict this recent ozone hole?
What does this have to do with climate? Moron.

Yet I still took the time

I love these so much.
I can't believe anyone smart enough to solve the captcha would think those kinds of image prove anything though

That would be pretty funny. I think someone once made a mockup screenshot of how that would look like

Nice blogpost homosexual

>Half of the years in your own chart have a FALLING sea level lmao.
LOL, imagine being this moronic and not being able to read a graph. It seems like deniers above room temperature IQ have all realized they were wrong, so all that's left are these bottom of the barrel troglodytes.

ftfy

>that's only because climate alarmists keep moving the goalposts.
Your stupidity is not anyone else's fault, deniertard.

>now if you inject any doubt, remind them of any history, or criticize any faulty plots, you're de facto low iq moron.
It would be nice if you could do any of those things, but instead you just fail to read simple graphs and post Facebook mommy memes. LOL

>i already debunked you last time you posted this.
You didn't. Here, I'll post the thread since you're afraid anyone will actually check your lie.

https://warosu.org/sci/thread/S14574798#p14578441

>it was said by a climate scientist
Nope, read the thread where you got BTFO. A scientist said "if this trend persists, the Arctic will be ice free by 2013," he did not say the Arctic will be ice free by 2013.

>i already debunked you last time you posted this
>I'm not reading your thread
Pathetic. Thanks for admitting you got BTFO

>more than one moronic denier doesn't capitalize
Nice try, samegay.

Keep on trying to samegay and failing.

see, this is what you resort to, irrelevant crap (and that this particular crap is false doesn't even matter)

Nice distraction tactics, but I will persist.
Did the trend change? (I'm still not reading your thread to figure out if you answered this question, because my guess is you never did and you never will)

>Obviously, moron.
What did I miss? What did we change in our activity so drastically that we saved the world?
>Otherwise the Arctic would be ice free.
Only if that guy wasn't as full of shit as you are. But since you're believer who's not in church only because "the trend has changed" you don't tend to doubt. But you will never be a scientist.

so the question is.. did the trend exist in the first place?

>You have nothing.
While you have funding. Mazel tov!

It depends on your definition of science, but that it is science doesn't tell that it is not corrupted beyond repair.

The trend is not really doubtable. Also, you see that the ice is still shrinking, but slower so. The other graph has data until 2005 and fits from 1995, where it starts falling off.. You see that it was steeper than it is today. So, yes, the trend did change. I'm not sure why you have to ask this when the information is literally out there. Just do your own research instead of parroting people :^)

Do we need to practice reading graphs together? The sea levels are rising, but again, that's in a graph 🙁

I'm sure your satellites measure something completely different

It's wikipedia, anybody can shit in there, it's there just to show that such theory existed.

Ok, write something else then and see what happens.

nice argument again, redtard, I didn't bring you the first link I found, because it had not sources, but one with actual scans of publications

When we scientist talk about publications, we usually mean peer-reviewed articles, not interviews with newspapers.

>Ok, write something else then and see what happens.
it depends. I suspect your sect to be monitoring that subject erasing all dissent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia
https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1010653/she-spent-a-decade-writing-fake-russian-history.-wikipedia-just-noticed.-?source=channel_rising

so not capitalizing (common with desktop users), and using parenthesis (common with people who know how to communicate) is only ever possibly used by one single anon? get a lot of the ego on this guy -- he's incapable of believing multiple anons can think he's a moron.

>I'll post the thread since you're afraid anyone will actually check your lie.
>https://warosu.org/sci/thread/S14574798#p14578441
Imagine being this colossally fricking moronic. Here, your own source showing me utterly destroying you.
https://warosu.org/sci/thread/S14574798#p14578652
Unbelievable.

>freely available and simple to understand
propaganda usually is (in these threads you guys never try to convince people with that simple to understand information, you prefer to scream moronic crap like "the science is settled, overwhelming majority of scientists agree!" (when we know that majority is ALWAYS wrong)

>All their science can be proven.
>t. Couldn't define science if my life depended in it

It's as I suspected. You don't need to see the inside of a university to do R&D, moron. Kys

> consensus
most of you parrots don't belong in science
(like literally the vast majority of academia will never become true scientists)

>OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE
not what you said (not what you have)

>That's what a scientific consensus is.
sure, honey, keep on believing, I don't insist on you making actual science (actually discovering something new instead of wroking as a parrot whose job is to lecture kids what's been approved) because we all know what the value of your science would be, and we don't need more crap into this world.

You ignored my argument:
Did the trend change?

The issue is that these were claimed to be predictions by scientists, in order to see doubt about climate science, but they're all misrepresentations or misattributions. Because that's all deniers have. Zero evidence, just lies.

Climate science is publicly available, your wilfull ignorance is not a valid excuse.

>what i have or haven't been exposed to personally doesn't matter
Then why did you bring it up?

>the reason climate science gets shit on so much is that a version of it which is obviously bullshit—even to you, to me, and to the scientists—is what's being sold to them by lying politicians that you, i, and the scientists all agree is inaccurate.
No, it's mostly due to moronic deniers who ignore evidence and oil shills who misrepresent evidence.

>What is your "simple to understand" evidence?
Who are you quoting? Sorry, I can't guarantee the evidence will be simple to understand for someone of your low intelligence. Nor does it need to be.

>and no, the reason it gets shit on isn't oil companies underselling it, it's very clearly politicians overselling it.
That's a convenient excuse, but the main reason is stupid people like you who shit on things they have no understanding of. You're the problem.

>> doesn't post that "overwhelming" evidence
Already posted, illiterate /misc/tard. Go back a few replies until you find it. Good boy.

No, you should find it. It will be a good exercise for you and teach you there are consequences to making shit up.

>I'm leaving this thread
Good.

>your data is crap even though I haven't read it
LOL, the comedy writes itself.

>Also if all your predictions fail, your theory is shit.
What predictions failed?

>cei.org/blog
Is it sfw or is that a blog about cum eating?

So both your parents sucks the big guv's dick and you want to, so whatever the current concensus is, you suck it up. I see, no more questions.

CEI got millions from ExxonMobil. Whose wiener are you sucking?

>why not billions?
Because that would not be true and I wouldn't lie to back up a point. See here and the sources herein: https://www.desmog.com/competitive-enterprise-institute/

Kinda explains their fanboyism:
https://cei.org/citations/can-exxonmobil-be-found-liable-for-misleading-the-public-on-climate-change/
https://cei.org/blog/down-in-flames-judge-dismisses-new-york-climate-lawsuit-against-exxonmobil/

Thanks again. But then again why should we trust our governments and why should we oppose those who produce products and don't take our money when we don't buy from them?

>We should listen to the actual experts in the fields.

>because people went way too far in following the experts
You are literally in the board that's supposed to be filled by experts. If you want to be angry at labcoat-wearing eggheads, go to another board. Can you guess which one I have in mind?

They are still correct. Global warming is a nothing burger

I dont care who said what, global warming is a nothing burger. Literally nothing has happened or the effects are so insignificant that you need very careful scientific analysis to even detect it.

Glaciers are always melting and freezing in different places on the earth. Nobody cares nobody lives in a glacier and its also not evidence of anything global. If global warming was as apocalyptic as you say it is you would not need to prove it to anyone, it would be obvious in daily life

>You could say this alt literally anything.
Yeah, and justifiably so. Name one apocalyptic event that's occurred in my lifetime which I would even know existed if I didn't watch the news. The media is literally shaking about a new scary thing every day and it's always fake. I wouldn't even have known about covid without the news if it wasn't for the overblown response being highly visible and disruptive to my life. Nobody would have.

Yeah and I didn't need to know or care about either of those, did I?

> it's not true if it wasn't through peer review
> it is definitely true if it was through peer review
Is it even possible to publish such metaanalysis in current climatologist literature?

So both your parents sucks the big guv's dick and you want to, so whatever the current concensus is, you suck it up. I see, no more questions.

the second quote is me, the first isn't. you calling me stupid when i probably agree with you on climate science while simultaneously lying to yourself that people shit on climate science because they like oil companies rather than the much more plausible truth that they hate lying politicians is exactly why we're all irredeemably fricked. people like you suck

i'm not the right person to be educating other people on climate science, but from what i can tell if you remove all the absolutes and all the urgency from what politicians say about it, what's left is pretty close to what climate scientists say about it—a dynamic which is expressed perfectly by the image i first replied to.

this one

ftfy

>that's only because climate alarmists keep moving the goalposts.
Your stupidity is not anyone else's fault, deniertard.

>now if you inject any doubt, remind them of any history, or criticize any faulty plots, you're de facto low iq moron.
It would be nice if you could do any of those things, but instead you just fail to read simple graphs and post Facebook mommy memes. LOL

they have ids on /misc/ like on reddit? lol no wonder the rep is so bad

The third is a fake cover and the rest are about cold weather in the US. But you knew that already, shill.

From your own link
>Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling; these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time, which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect.[1]

There was a massive snowstorm in the US in 1973 and 78, people genuinely freaked out because there were long periods of blizzards, months even.

Of course weather =/= climate, such blizzards arent evidence of global cooling by themselves. I also think in 78 the blizzards were confined to the eastern US.

have fun killing the planet by working against helping the planet i guess

i didn't bring up my personal experience, you did. and no, the reason it gets shit on isn't oil companies underselling it, it's very clearly politicians overselling it.

Holy fricking shit do you not know how to read a chart?

No, it means change in sea level from a baseline. This is done because it makes it easier to combine data sets. Fricking moron.

>you're the moron. it can be more clearly communicated by saying "sea level"
But it's not sea level, you fricking troglodyte. It's sea level anomaly, which is just the change in sea level from an arbitrary baseline. Thanks for proving I was right about you. If you were a physicist you would be able to read simple graphs.

Same thing, pseud.

That's rate of change, not change! How many times do you need to get BTFO before you realize you're a LARPing pseud moron who doesn't belong here?

The axis literally says "change in sea level" so excuse me for assuming it was labeled correctly.

>Not what I said, moron.
It's what you implied. Don't play coy gay.

>by some homosexual
Got any facts to back that up?

>REEEEEEEEEEEE that's too much evidence for me to sift through so I'll just dismiss it as unreliable
You're no different from the climate deniers which reject the IPCC dumps of links.

when we discuss potential energy in physics, we define a reference point where U = 0. then, anywhere else we say the potential energy is some value, mgy. we do NOT say the "change" in potential energy. same type of plot, more clearly communicated because physicists, unlike climatologists, know how to communicate.

let me make it easier for your pea brain to comprehend. the entire point of defining a reference point of zero is so that you can avoid writing those pesky changes.

>sea level increases by about 3 mm a year? wow, so, like, by the year 2100 AD, the sea level will have increased by a whopping 30 cm?
Incorrect, sea level rise is accelerating. The current rate is 3.7 mm per year. By 2100, sea level is likely to increase by 60-100 cm, depending on emissions.

>omg i'm literally shaking?
You understand how averages work, right? That means more flooding and deeper flooding.

>sea level increases by about 3 mm a year? wow, so, like, by the year 2100 AD, the sea level will have increased by a whopping 30 cm?
>80*3=30
>the chart, as shown, indicates the sea level dropped between 1992 and about 2000
Ok this bait is too obvious now.

Is that what she said?

>REEEEEEEEEEEE that's too much evidence for me to sift through so I'll just dismiss it as unreliable
You're no different from the climate deniers which reject the IPCC dumps of links.

>evidence
It's fricking news articles.
>Some navy guy said ...
Who gives a shit what some navy butthole says? I said before, whoever says "in this many days or years, that event will happen for sure" is likely not a scientist, and if he is, not one that should be taken seriously.

So if they say it absolutely will happen, they're not a scientist. If they say it might happen, and it doesn't, they're absolved of responsibility and weren't wrong. In other words, at best they're always right and at worst they're never wrong. Fricking lol. Kys moron

>ever consider that conservatives who know more about facts surrounding climate change are more likely to deny the climate alarmists claims?
Yeah, I understand. If you want to conserve the environment as it is, you probably read a lot about it like those greenpeace people

>lawsuit
Since when does that have anything to do with scientific evidence?
Why are you ignoring that it has been confirmed by other research?

Some frivolous lawsuit by some assblasted denier over an old climate dataset?
>outcome will be both a legal and scientific vindication of U.S. President Donald Trump’s claims that climate scare stories are a “hoax.”
Yeah it’s clear what his vais and intent was. As if some clueless judge has the authority on evidence.
I will ask again but you’ll keep talking about unrelated shit. Do you have arguments against the data or methods?
Here’s the link to all the data and code used.
https://atmos.washington.edu/~hakim/lmr/

>personal blogs
>washington.edu

If it's written by a professor on the website if his university, that's not a personal blog. He is an employee publishing this in the name of his employer. Unlike that Unabomber website or the medium.com link. What makes you think that this is a personal blog? Seriously?

It’s a link to the data repository and the GitHub with the code

Just like how the earlier blog you repudiated had a bunch of links elsewhere. You're obviously ignorant about what you're talking about, and clearly have at most a bachelor's degree. Wouldn't be surprised if still in undergrad tbqh

Looked at it. Clicked x. Happy? That's how this works right? Btw you'll never be a woman troony. Kys

>refute the hockey stick graph or shut the frick up
I'll make this easy for you. Prove you have any education beyond a bachelor's or shut the frick up.

>https://scientists4future.org/we-are/initial-statement/
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I'm dying. I don't even need to respond anymore, you've just self owned so hard I don't think I could top that. Thank you, anon.

You’re really going through the logical fallacy list huh? I’m personally cited in the study but you refuse to make any sort of argument beyond complaining about a link

Refute the data. Keep in topic and stop talking about unrelated things

Refute the data

>Definitely not American right?
You mean, Americans wouldn't ask you to stay on topic but engage in an exchange of insults with you, burger? Go shoot up a school or whatever you guys do for fun

Actually, I wasn't even that anon lol. But why do you think he would be a kraut? I mean, I get the dumb, fat American meme who doesn't want to walk to Walmart and therefore insists on blasting CO2 into the atmosphere. Your compatriots literally die in wars over oil around the world. But krauts? If you think of bicycles instead of cars, that's the Netherlands. Germany is actually the country burning coal and driving everywhere.

So why did you make this about origin now? Did you run out of mud for the waters? Now you have to threaten to dox people so you can feel like you achieved something tonight?

Nor him but as I said, my paper is cited in the LMR study and I work in the field. Refute the data or shut up. It should be easy for you if you’re so smart

>Definitely not American right?
You mean, Americans wouldn't ask you to stay on topic but engage in an exchange of insults with you, burger? Go shoot up a school or whatever you guys do for fun

Hmm maybe I'll just email the entire group and tell them at least one of them is posting on IQfy. European countries like Germany and Sweden take this kind of thing very seriously. Perhaps an investigation into which of you are pedophiles

You really talk about everything except the science

Hey, we broke him so much that he retorts to Wojaks. How much more until you kys? Would save the world quite some CO2

Have you guys frozen a controlled amount of substance in water and then seen if you get all of it back using your same extraction processes?

Also, this site consists of 80% links to other sites. It's not really a matter of personal opinion how to spell the URL, is it?

It’s a link to the data repository and the GitHub with the code

I fricking hate undergrads. Yes, it's obvious how much education you have.

Why is sucking wiener on your mind? You're a twisted homosexual who will never be a woman. Nobody will ever love you.

Wow, so now personal blogs are valid sources? Frick you, hypocritical piece of shit.

Are you going to keep lying or are you going to refute the data and method that’s clearly linked in the page?

It’s almost like you’re a lying denier shill. Make an argument against the data or shut up.

I want to call him out for being a dishonest shill

Ok let's look at the court decision, shall we?:
https://archive ph/uzvao
>The plaintiff, Dr. Mann, and the defendant, Dr. Ball, have dramatically different opinions on climate change. I do not intend to address those differences.
So no ruling on climate change
>The total time elapsed, from the filing of the notice of civil claim until the application to dismiss was filed, was eight years. It will be almost ten years by the time the matter goes to trial. There have been two periods, of approximately 35 months in total, where nothing was done. In my view, by any measure, this is an inordinate delay.
>Additionally, based upon the evidence filed, the plaintiff and his counsel appear to have attended to other matters, both legal matters and professional matters in the case of the plaintiff, rather than give this matter any priority. The plaintiff appears to have been content to simply let this matter languish.
So, instead of pursuing the libel stuff, Mann did other things, which the judge interprets as "Mann doesn't care enough"
>the defendant intended to call three witnesses at trial who would have provided evidence going to fair comment and malice. Those witnesses have now died. A fourth witness is no longer able to travel
lol, in the meantime the witnesses died of old age
>The parties are both in their eighties and Dr. Ball is in poor health. He has had this action hanging over his head like the sword of Damocles for eight years and he will need to wait until January 2021 before the matter proceeds to trial. That is a ten year delay from the original alleged defamatory statement. Other witnesses are also elderly or in poor health. The memories of all parties and witnesses will have faded by the time the matter goes to trial.
So, it was dismissed because Ball is an old frick and it just took too long. It never even came to a trial. That's your triumph? That is your proof that climate change is a hoax?

>asking for the definition of science isn't on topic on a thread about whether climatology is science
Embarrassing. Kys.

The largest contributor to the greenhouse effect is irrelevant, it's the *change* in the greenhouse effect that causes warming. Dumb /misc/tard.

Water vapor has too short of a residence time to drive global warming.

Proof?

anything would be enough for policymakers of today because they're all hypocritical buttholes who think they deserve exemptions of nobility to their own laws

I don't care about your intent or the fact that you think we live in Harry Potter.

What are you hiding? Present: shitty 1-year contracts at a salary of 30-40% of what I'd get if I worked for a private company instead of a research institute. Oh and I'd work much less in a company. If you think that scientists are the evil omnipotent overlords, part of the world elite, you couldn't be more wrong. Why would anyone do the job we do if they didn't genuinely care?

The salary is meaningless if you live in another country and have a different currency and cost of living. You can look up postdoc salaries. They are public and there's no room for negotiation. I'm not doxxing myself any further, use Google to find out what a young researcher earns during the first few years after his phd.

>one assumes that even joseph fricking goebbels genuinely cared about what he did,
Goebbels was actually quite the smoothbrain. A lot of first and second row nazis made huge profits though.
> you pretend to care.
What's your logic here? I don't care about the planet or science at all? As in, I work as a postdoc because in addition to my official salary I get gold from the lizard people on Epstein's island? Or what do you mean?

I'm actually saying smoothbrains actually care more than the capitalist opportunists in the party. IIRC he adored Hitler like no one else. Also, he had his own, independent weird views that somewhat aligned with Hitler's but there were some socialist ideas in there too. Basically exchanging the bourgeoisie with israelites. Yeah, I think that guy genuinely cared in a twisted way.

>you write like a wealthy elite because you are one. stop it with this "i'm one of you! i swear!" bullshit. it's obvious to people who actually are poor, and grew up poor, that you're full of shit with your faux sympathy.
Give me some way to determine if I'm part of the elite or if I grew up poor. Now I'm not poor, I get by, but I could do a lot better given my qualifications. But it's not like I have to skip meals because of inflation or I live paycheck to paycheck.

Ok you win the victim olympics. Keep thinking that my 16 year old bike is a Maserati if you want. Keep thinking that my studio apartment is a penthouse. I know, rejecting reality helps keep the whole "climate change can't hurt me" picture alive.

>canned answer
You keep parroting this. Do you think people cannot genuinely talk to you and they are all part of a big conspiracy to deceive you? Do you think, the cia taught me canned answers I should give when cornered? This is a fricking anonymous imageboard, I could tell you to eat a dick and ignore you anytime. Why would I need canned answers?

Who are you to tell me what flies and what doesn't? I answer your questions honestly and they don't fit into the fragile alternative reality you constructed to escape whatever trauma you may have suffered. Your mind sees my answer as a threat to its psychosis, so it attacks me with all force. I can't be rich. I must be elite. Scientists are evil and lying and stupid and keep contradicting themselves. They all have a political agenda because a scientist cares personally what other people eat or when they cut down the rainforest!
I honestly don't care what you eat as long as it's not a burden to our planet. I honestly have never seen the rainforest, so personally I don't have any connection to it and you could cut it down for all all I care personally. On a more factual level I know how terrible it is for our planet to cut down and burn natural CO2 reservoirs. But that really doesn't fit into the "scientists = evil" theory. Or do you think that I have an irrational hate against Brazilian woodsmen and want to destroy their jobs?

>how to frame and answer things
I'm not a public figure. I'm not a politician, nor am I in a political party or NGO. I don't give a frick how to frame things, I'm just myself

then don't take my advice, simple as.

top one is me, bottom four others

you think it's a delusion that many extremely rich people are famous for not spending a dime? try reading a book or a newspaper or maybe just try reading anything?

you think that knowing some rich people spend a lot, some spend some, and some spend a little describes a victim complex? tell me more

well that's the only thing the post you replied to says, so i'm gonna guess you're either a moron or a schizo. am i warm?

no, i want you to read me exactly what you read. why won't you?

so you're a schizo, cool

bot

>Say that to Venus
come on man, even the worst case 80 year predictions are that the economy will contract by 10% over the base case. cut the crap.

even rome only "collapsed" if you compress a thousand years into a few paragraphs and describe it from the perspective of kings and courts. normal people who weren't involved in politics or palace intrigue simply went on with their lives