When given a choice between years and years of peer reviewed scientific research published in credible scientific journals and an autistic Canadian man with a YouTube channel, Sup Forums will choose the latter.
Give me one reason why you shouldn't be sterilized.
Other urls found in this thread:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
youtu.be
youtu.be
youtube.com
twitter.com
Do you know any of the arguments against climate change hysteria, user? Not saying that the hysteria is unjustified, but just saying "peer reviewed scientific research supports my side" is not.... well, you know.
Credible scientific journals aren't as entertaining to follow as a Canadian man with a YouTube channel.
Yeah that's what I >thought
As someone who has over 30 publications in peer-reviewed journals, I can assure you that 99% of stuff there is outright made up bullshit. Plenty of times I didn't perform any actual experiments or research, I just wrote down plausible numbers and nobody ever noticed.
You can find LOTS of whitepapers in very credible scientific journals which thoroughly explain that credible scientific journals are not credible at all and that almost all papers have either flawed methodology or outright forged results and data.
Climate change is even worse than "average" science tho, all pro-CC scientists receive funding to find human-made CC, they have huge financial incentive to generate very specific results of research, and they were caught altering data and using completely unreliable, never tested models as gospel over and over again.
Fact: CC models so far failed to predict anything, and according to the very basis of science, Popper criteria, this makes CC unscientific.
the fuck are you saying?
Stopped reading after
>As someone who has over 30 publications
because I know you are full of shit
There's also people on here that believe the world is flat.
The autistic Canadian doesn't make a bullshit environmental apocalypse prediction every 10 years.
this post is over
uh boy bye
Norma Zorhay
Hey guys, lets all listen to this guy who admitted he pretends to know things and do scientific work but is actually full of shit!
Please explain one that a climate scientist made
>inb4 al gore is a scientist.
>implying publishing a peer reviewed scientific research is hard
>implying what ever is published in peer reviewed scientific journal is always 100% true
>implying Canadian man with a youtube channel was the one making scientific research
>implying
Did anyone ever tell you how much you suck shit at arguing?
Please explain to me the peer reviewed process. I always love to listen to Sup Forums sperg about how they know more than the scientists at literally everything.
Tell me oh champion of science:
- How many genders are there?
- Is there reason to believe that humans, geographically isolated for tens of thousands of years, would all evolve identical intellectual capacities?
- Is a fetus part of the mother's body? If so, why does it only share half of her genetic makeup?
>yfw liberals are science-denying religious fundamentalists minus religion
>1 post by this ID
Go read what your beloved scientists say about other scientists.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Cimate change is real, its part of the earth's natural cycle. What we're denying is man's influence. If we are to blame then who caused the last 6 ice ages?
You don't need to be a fucking scientist to figure it out.
>make a claim
>do an experiment
>gather some data
>draw some conclusions
>confirm or deny your claim
>try to publish your research
>if the conclusion you have reached confirms the reviewers opinions, your research is accepted
>the reviewers are given grants from the state
You figure out which research gets published and which doesn't
...
You dare call this an argument?!
>statists in this thread will defend government funded "science" that isn't pitted against the market place of ideas, hereby violating the NAP by forcing me to adhere to pointless regulations at gunpoint
I can explain peer review.
You may think its something interesting, but it's not.
It's literally, hey friend scientist I know and works with me, look at this, do you think its retarded or ok.
Then they say its good because they're friends and want to help eachother.
Then they can say it's "peer reviewed scientist evidence."
It's not that great honestly.
They could say eating shit is actually good for you and have it be peer reviewed if they wanted to.
>submitted to the PLOS medical journal
>Specifically talks about problems within medical field
>says scientist over and over again, must apply to all scientists
>medical malpractice is obvious sign global warming is false.
It doesn't even have to be bias of reviewers.
As reviewer, you deal with 4 page long explanation of months of work. And out of these 4 pages, 2 are mandatory bullshittery about researched problem and current state of field, so only 2 pages are actually describing model/experiment/data/findings.
Most of the time, you can't even figure out exact details of experiment, and of course there's no data, no code, no model details, so you have no way to validate it. Replicating experiment would cost hundreds of thousands and take months, and you usually have only 1-3 days to submit review.
So instead of checking whether findings are true, you check formal criteria (does it have all needed sections? does it cite some shit w/out references? is language passable?) and then work only on grounds of common sense, which isn't enough to catch non-trivial fake science.
>the same academic institutions that are telling me there are more than two genders want me to believe in man made climate change
Really made me think
bahaha. Wrong. The research in question is submitted to anonymous reviewers. The reviewers anonymously submit their revisions and questions, or denials, back to the researcher.
The peer reviewed process has long thought of all of your bullshit. And they have taken steps to prevent exactly what you are explaining, probably well before you and I were ever born. Good try though. A little google may help now and then before you just spout out bullshit.
one side, if you disagree with them you are evil and should not be allowed to speak
the other side, find out for yourself
I don't know which side is the most accurate
but I can tell which side is the cult
>implying gender studies and physical sciences are the exact same field of study.
I always wanted a dog when I was a kid but my mother never bought me one.
Should I DEFOO ?
Peer review is anonymous dumb ass.
You are all using machines and technology that were created thanks to peer review science. Scientists that work on climate change are trained the same and hold themselves to the same standards. Also, clearly the money incentive is on the other side (millions from oil companies).
You see cars and factories around you. You know they put carbon and methane in the atmosphere. You can learn very easily about the effect carbon and methane in the atmosphere have on a planet. There are many more specifics that it is worth looking into, but you have to be a fucking moron to not think man-made climate change is plausible. Then get the data for yourself and plot it to see that it is happening.
same folks
High effort post. Totally BTFO
Needing (((someone))) with a title or group or some made up merit is a sign of being a sheep.
For example would Socrates be a "autistic bearded man who gives lectures"? The argument, not who gives it, matters.
it isn't immune to liars and fraudsters like:
but its the best system we have (much like capitalism)
If you can think of a better system then we'd all be eternally indebted to you.
Here is a video by Amecinan team with a youtube channel:
youtu.be
Here is a video by Australian man with a youtube channel:
youtu.be
Both of them explain the problems with scientific research and peer reviewed journals.
Worth 20 minutes of your time for sure.
I like how somehow you equate believing that Earth's climate system can be altered is somehow equated to believing in 800 genders and thinking trannies are beautiful
Again, both of these only touch on problems within the medical field. Holds no bearing on the physical sciences community.
You haven't even watched the fucking video
This
oppps! more proof you have a flawed intellect.
i often take the pro-FE position to have some fun
i don't believe it at all.
stop being a moron, or at the very least stop asking us to pay attention to you when you announce how flawed your logic circuits are.
For one, nearly every climate change believer doesn't really understand the papers and data that they present, they just shove it in your face and say that scientists approve it. That's fine and dandy, but you can't really believe something you don't understand. Atheists of all people should know better.
apparently he doesn't know. He's saying you're faith based
Thats not even an argument. We've got a good grasp on the general conditions that can lead to ice sheet formation, including landlocked polar oceans that change ocean circulation patterns. I get skepticism about humans role in climate, but most people act like the climate system has no physical basis and is just a roll of the dice. We are smart enough to quantify most of the major climate processes (radiation, albedo, greenhouse effect, Milankovitch cycles, ocean circulation) to at least get a ballpark estimate
Yeah the climate does change naturally, nobody smart is denying that, the entire point is that we might be fucking up that equilibrium that has been pretty conducive to advanced life for the last 500 million years or so. But it sure does seem like a major coincidence that we are having a major warming trend at the same time we take part in a bunch of large scale processes that we would expect to result in warming. If you believe in physics, (Stefan-Boltzmann law) then it follows that certain gases have warming properties. Greenhouse effect is the reason the planet isnt cold as shit like Mars. Plants assimilate carbon at increasing rates as CO2 concentrations go up, but there is a level of diminishing returns past which plants wont be capable of fixing carbon at a higher rate without genetic engineering or something. Not to mention it doesnt help that we losing some of the biggest carbon sinks, shit just wait till the permafrost melts that will be the real dick in the ass. We terraform on such a huge scale collectively it would be hard to believe we arent fucking something up. I really fucking hope climate change is just a giant scam (very hard to believe it could be pulled off IMO), that would definitely be much more desireable than the alternative.
Its true that most advocates dont know shit about the physical science, but that doesnt necessarily make them wrong
Have you donated, you filthy freeriders?
I've heard this before and find this compelling but anecdotes on Sup Forums will not convince those who I argue with about this subject. Do you have any material on this?
Well sometimes people on YouTube can make their own research and news channels do a worse job. Either way you should check multiple sources.
>Still doesn't understand what (((peer reviewed))) scientific research means.
>Sat their watching the (((peer reviewed))) polls coming out ahead of Brexit, and all election in the USA.
>Wrong every time.
>Believes that these people are stupid enough to get something like this wrong, rather than lying to further their agenda.
There's just no helping you, friendo. Believe them if they want, they could be telling the truth. But after watching them viciously lie to our faces for the last X amount of years, I think they are probably lying about this.
For me, the rule has become:
>Whenever the mainstream media aggressively promotes something and viciously attacks anyone who disagrees, they are probably lying about whatever they are promoting.
>earth temperature fluactates quite a bit over the last few thousand years
>every time it's because of changes in solar activity
>warms up in 20th century after solar activity increases again following centuries of cold and low solar activity
>this time the heat is manmade
hmm. Seems kind of silly to give humans credit for a natural process that has been happening since before humans existed
>global cooling
>no wait
>global warming
>no wait
>climate change
climate change caused the ice age you racist climate denier.
Don't think you know what peer-review means, polls and news articles are not peer-reviewed in the academic sense.
That said, peer-review in academia is failing, there is too many people writing papers that are impossible to read.
>Climate doesn't change