dChan
Anonymous ID: dddb4e Jan. 31, 2019, 5:28 p.m. No.4982435   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2518 >>2638 >>2666 >>2764 >>2808 >>2822 >>2901

>>4982126

>>4982262

>>4982271

TY Bakers!!!

 

Thank you, anons, for earlier today. I asked about any available info anons might have in the Climate Change / Global Warming debate, and anons sent me on a search that didnt get me exactly what I was looking for, but it might be just enough to help other anons in their conversations on the subject.

 

The request, you would think, is quite simple. Show how the IPCC comes to the conclusion that increased CO2 in the atmosphere directly correlates to increased temps, and how "deniers" show that those models are flawed. My current stance on the subject has changed some, based on what I've found, but not quite how the "alarmists" would anticipate. The long/short is:

  1. IPCC misquoted papers that were submitted, and even discarded some that were contrary to the original question asked, in order to fluff the 97% number.

  2. IPCC changed how they framed the conversation re: potential human contributions to warming trends (humans weakly contribute changed to majorly contribute) after they received all the submissions that were filtered in order to stress the point of human contribution.

  3. There are still many scientists that insist the greatest contributing factor is the sun.

  4. IPCC refutation of the sun theory currently claims the solar minimum is in direct contraction to recent temp rises (this is still a point that needs addressing).

  5. The actual consensus is that humans do have some impact on the rising temps, but to the extent is the real question that is being avoided by the international community, and stressed by the "deniers".

  6. The changes proposed as a solution would cost far more than the corrective measures would address to alleviate the needs of the "alarmists". In other words, "do all this now, and well see in 10 years."

  7. No matter the real result, the solution involves penalizing developed western countries, and giving everyone else a pass.

 

How IPCC came up with 97%, after dismissing 66 percent of the papers submitted on the subject:

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/putting-con-consensus-not-only-there-no-97-cent-consensus-among-climate-scientists-many

 

IPCC misquoted climate skeptics in their 97% figure to further their claims:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

 

Patrick Moore on Climate Change and CO2:

https://youtu.be/RkdbSxyXftc

 

https://youtu.be/WDWEjSDYfxc

 

Christopher Munckton explains the problem of the IPCC consensus, and the global community's agenda to push for international treaties based on the IPCC findings:

https://youtu.be/MxRk-9o9QOA

 

Stanford's Hoover Institution finds conflicting CO2 and temp data based on glacial core samples. IPCC models conflict with actual recorded data:

https://www.hoover.org/research/flawed-climate-models

 

Some scientists insist Climate Change is cyclical:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/845901/climate-change-natural-global-warming-evidence-jennifer-marohasy

 

China and the Paris Accord:

https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/390741-chinas-rising-emissions-prove-trump-right-on-paris-agreement

 

I hope this info finds helpful in anons future discussions. There's nothing definitive or conclusive, but it's a conversation that most certainly proves more complicated than a cheapened consensus should have ever been allowed to surmise, prompting international political action.