Well?

well?

Other urls found in this thread:

thebulletin.org/yes-there-really-scientific-consensus-climate-change9332
xenosystems.net/perspective/
blog.dilbert.com/post/158159613566/how-to-convince-skeptics-that-climate-change-is-a
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

really makes me think

The thing people question is man-made climate change.

Funny, I'm a scientist and I don't remember being asked.

Last I checked, science isn't a democracy.

> implying scientific truth is subject to a vote
> implying scientists aren't all idealistic cucks from spending their entire lives in a bubble of high-IQ beta males

op, show me the fucking data, and then show me a carbon tax that's not an anti-White NWO plot, or go shoah yourself.

thread

>what is statistics

Replication of experiments is the cornerstone of science, without replication you have no certainty about results and is called pseudocience as a result.

>Science is consensus.

GTFO

is that a motherfucking pepe reference?

>pseudocience

Like like climate ""'science"""?

Well, there are Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
>Replication of experiments is the cornerstone of science, without replication you have no certainty about results and is called pseudocience as a result.
Have you tried to replicate these "consensus" studies?

What does a carbon tax have to do with the science of climate change? Talk about putting the cart before the horse. If your political ideology does not have a solution for a threat like climate change it is not an ideology worth considering.

This shit is taught in school as fact. As someone else has pointed out heliocentric views of the solar system were far from the consensus despite being the truth. In reality, the only country causing any "climate change" now-a-days is China. They're probably all gonna die of lung cancer before they hit 40. Fucking gooks.

...

There are three replications right there in OP's picture. You may perform more if you're unsatisfied.

>If your political ideology does not have a solution for a threat like climate change it is not an ideology worth considering.

You will never reach a true conclusion with a false premise. Cart before horse indeed.

Those percentages look familiar.

In the 80's, it was global cooling. Then it became global warming. Now it is just climate change.

>conflating climate change with man made climate change
>being a fucking asshole supporting the wasting of millions of dollars

Fuck off user.

Most off these "Scientists" still believe light is a set speed and that gravity exists. Neither exist and everything is magnetism and nobody wants the public to know because that would mean energy could be tapped from the ionosphere and space itself. Global warming is a lie and as long as our magnetic field doesn't get fucked we'll be fine.

fucking climate won't stay the same! REEE

Did the climate change from today compared to yesterday?
(Rained yesterday, clear skies today.)
Yes.

98% of scientist believe in the weather.

this makes me think more

Of course the climate changes.

The question is how much does mankind contribute to it and what life-ruing and economically-destructive policies need to be enacted as a result.

Anyone who thinks with their brain can see why climate alarmism is retarded.

Yea! fellow Canadien here just saying thats true, seems like every winter up her is gettin weirder, the river out back unfroze and refroze, you tellin me the weather aint changin? your crzier than a moose

"climates change!"

no fucking shit sherlock, but what percentage of its change is influenced by people?

Would that the scientific process worked via consensus.

For fucks sake

The consensus is for man made climate change, stop gaslighting

The one thing Al Gore did right was making climate change a fucking laughing stock.

You misunderstand what this number means.
So. A bunch of peer reviewed studies on climate change were examined. Of those studies 97% of those studies found some correlation to suggest man has affected climate change in some way
HOWEVER. The degree by which humans affect the climate is still highly debated.
Which is why alarmism is still silly

These aren't replication. These are different studies. For example, John Cook did an analysis of 12,000 abstracts. He found a "97% consensus" amound papers that took a position on the cause. Did you get that? 12,000 abstracts were looked at. Not 12,000 that supported. Of the 12,000 that took a position on the cause. So some number smaller than 12,000. How many was that? 34% or about 4000. Of that, 33% APPEARED to support anthropogenic cause. So 33% of the 34% gave him the 97% that he ran with. So you see how it's bullshit? Yet when that test was repeated using the same materials by Professor Legates, he found only 41 of the papers expressing an opinion out of these 12,000 abstracts. Which is 0.3%. Or 1% of the 4000 that even Cook reduced to. Cook hyped 12000 and 97% and the media and dumbass "science fan" brigade ran with it uncritically. When even his crosstabs revealed a devil in the details and attempt to reproduce his work failed.

>Some science centuries ago used to be false therefore this science done with hyper precise instruments and access to tucking space must be false too

Scientist here, these numbers were produced for political reasons.

The details of the survey aren't specified, the question was probably very broad like 'does climate change occur'.

The question of 'does man influence climate change' would have a much lower percent.

The real redpill here is that NOAA is producing a ton of the 'evidence' for climate change and have been CAUGHT by peer review boards for unethically editing their data, going back and ADJUSTING HISTORICAL DATA TO MAKE A TREND OF TEMPERATURE INCREASE WHEN THERE WASN'T ONE under the guise of 'errors in historical measurement techniques' that they could not provide better explanation of.
Did thermometers not work in the 1900s? Because that's what they're implying.

Also basic chemistry shows that carbon dioxide, the main many produced greenhouse gas, is one of the least effective at absorbing energy through radiation (diatomic molecules are much better at this because they are easier to excite into higher energy states).

Basically, while yes climate change occurs, and yes we likely have SOME influence on it, these two facts are stretched and used by science illiterate politicians to push the 'doomsday scenario' fear mongering onto the public.

The real issue, much greater than a 0.3C degree increase in global temp (notice they always use Fahrenheit to describe climate change because the difference seems more significant) is the persistent toxins we pump into the environment at 'acceptable rates'. Some of these chemicals almost never break down, so even if we add only a little bit at a time to the environment, nothing ever takes them out so the concentration increases. The agricultural industry does 1000x more damage to the planet than the fossil fuel industry, without a doubt. Do your research if you want to debate hippies, it's really easy to defend your position if you have a science education and actually read journals

all the broof I need

Because normies are retarded, scientists have to use precise terms. Some parts are cooling, some are warming because of climate change, but the global mean is rising at an exponential rate.

Again, scientists agree on man made climate change, not just "climate change"

shut up mutt, ill gaslight as many science kikes as i want

is that a pepe

Light isn't a set speed, nobody says that. Light is massless and all massless things in the universe move at c.

Nice alternative facts

>The question is how much does mankind contribute to it and what life-ruing and economically-destructive policies need to be enacted as a result.

No its not. The settled science is that mankind caused it. This is not disputable.

>splitting hairs
kys

>The agricultural industry does 1000x more damage to the planet than the fossil fuel industry, without a doubt

Never said it didn't. Thanks for proving my point with your dumbass strawman though.

Opinion discarded.

All I see are three Pepes

They're wrong, what now?

The consensus exists because of the studies that have been done. You can't just say that the consensus doesn't matter unless you have data that shows the climate has NOT been warming as a result of human release of CO2

Increas of CO2 emission is mainly caused by burning of fossil fuel. Fossil fuels have a different delta 13 C fingerprint. (pic related)
>It is not a hoax it is real

thebulletin.org/yes-there-really-scientific-consensus-climate-change9332

John Cook says the opposite you faggot

Earth is flat, everyone read the bible and agrees. Burn the heretics.

>10,000 years worth of 'natural' climate change has happened since industrial revolution
>"We're still not sure if man caused it or not"
Please for the sake of everyone, shut the fuck up.

>Lets talk about slanted statistics and fraudulent interpretations.
Let's talk about physics, thermodynamics and electromagnetic radiation.
(Check Mate!)

let me guess, you're in high school

A way to redpill the left on this is to tell them that a majority of scientists used to support eugenics and the idea of the multiple race theory.

>10,000 years
Citation needed fagget.

>Scientists
>Climate Change

>people that are paid to find specific conclusions find them so that they can keep the gravy train rolling

OP is correct

>The consensus is for man made climate change, stop gaslighting
then it should be very easy to answer the question of just what the ratio of human to natural influence is.
>implying there is no natural forces causing climate change
>implying glaciation and inter glacial periods are not natural

Here's the abstract from Cook 2013:

>We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, (((32.6% endorsed AGW))), 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. (((Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.))) In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

As for Anderegg. First of all, the last author is Schneider. Second, much of that paper basically establishes that those who accept climate change receive more (((support))).

>gravity doesn't exist

I can't believe people like you fucking exist

Shouldn't global warming have sped up in the past few decades? It's only slowed down according to this graph. We've pumped out a LOT more CO2 in the past few decades, especially with the developing countries building up.

>author says he dindu nuffin
wew, glad that's settled then

climate "science" is a huge heap of dung. Not only is there no experimentation and no replication - there's not even independent studies, everybody draws their numbers from centralized sources.
Those who dare explore other avenues like the ice core samples of glaciers are disparaged, belittled and threatened.

>then it should be very easy to answer the question of just what the ratio of human to natural influence is.
There are many differnt numbers and they are all not 100% accurate.
Also there are a lot of feedback loops that are not fully understood yet. However the increase in greenhouse gases is human made and we just don't know exactly what is going to happen.
Look here

If climate change was real then why do climate scientists so often have to fake data to suit their disposition? If it was so obviously happening wouldn't that be apparent?
CO2 levels =/= climate change.

More important than that is, does it even matter?
We can prove that temperature patterns are changing, but every 'prediction' on the future trends or what effects it will have are based on MODELS which can be easily built to show what the scientist desires.
There is a psyop to imply that any research that doesn't blatantly support climate change is funded by the oil industry, when in reality it's the opposite and pro climate change research is the only one the federal government funds.

I would really expect better from Sup Forums.
Leave it to a bunch of Google and Wikipedia 'scientists' to decide what's real and what isn't I guess.

Ever wonder why climate change is the most talked about scientific subject on the news/ public sphere, when other massively important areas of research aren't part of the common discussion?
Wake the fuck up, you are being manipulated.

"The problem with the 97% consensus is that it is too high" -Milo

And he is totally right. Something this controversial with the laymen has got to be a little controversial among the scientists as well. When has it happened before that the general population is divided on a subject where 97% of scientists agree?

I have no opinion on this, but "settled science" is horseshit. You get a bunch of data, create a theory with good predictive ability and parsimony for the purpose of making your life easier. Then more data comes in, makes the current theory too clunky, and you come up with a new one to make your life easier, etc etc.

What you mean to say is "a meta-analysis of existing papers shows that overall trend supports the idea of global warming". This assuming the meta-analysis isn't political hackery and that the topic isn't fucked by tons of money coming from all sides for political reasons.

No shit he says the opposite. What's he going to do? Say "well yeah I fucked it up but it's good for the cause!" No. That's why others need to be able to replicate his work.

>xenosystems.net/perspective/

No, I just don't spellcheck or grammar check before posting to this dump.

>If climate change was real then why do climate scientists so often have to fake data to suit their disposition?
Sauce needed faggot

Unfortunately science doesn't look for agreement it looks for challenge. So what I see here is that 97% of scientists like scaring governments into fat funding so they can drive their Mercedes.

Shit, we got a brainiac on our hands here.

97% of Iraqis voted for Saddam. Probably 100% if they were to redo it a week later.

>if enough scientists say that 2+2 = 5, it must be true!
Believe in what you will, but you're fucking retarded if you think that it must be true just because so many people believe in it.
You'd think atheists of all people would realize that.

>"consensus"

Remember when Hillary had a 98% chance of winning?

I'm trying to apply this information to my post but it doesn't work. What the heck are you trying to say?

...

Plenty of modern science is proven false only a few years later, do some research.
The consensus on Gravitational waves was that they did not exist until last year and now they are accepted as factual. In 2 years the study may be repeated and those results shown to be false.
Contrary to Internet Sci fi nerd popscience, science is not 'cold hard truth' but a constantly changing and highly political system of doctrine.
You could have amazing revolutionary perfectly performed research and if the bureaucratic agencies that control publication don't like you or what you have to say they can throw it out and smear you as hack, without letting anyone else see your research.

I'm a scientist, and I think that people need to have much less faith in the scientific community. Learn science yourself and use your own brain, don't trust other scientists, including myself.

you're just not important enough user
me and all the other scientists in the science club all got together and decided you're a dick

>Not knowing where the 97% meme comes from.

One of the few intelligent people itt

>98.5% of climate scientists agree that they should get paid more and for a longer time

who woulda thought eh

maybe you should poll the construction workers if the house they are building should be destroyed so that they could get paid for a longer time

>>>
> Anonymous (ID: UEYEVrU+) 03/11/17(Sat)23:19:44 No.116224538▶
> (OP)
>Remember when Hillary had a 98% chance of winning?
I just thought about the same thing. It's not the first time the media gives us that 98% shit.

wtf
ice cores are one of the primary sources of ancient historical data

the big thing that confused me when I was younger was why they kept changing what the fuck was causing it. spray cans? C02? Greenhouse gasses?
remember fucking acid rain?

I believe in man made climate change but every time someone brings up this point it pisses me the fuck off.

Science isn't based on the consensus of opinion but on the consensus of data. If you brought up something like '90%' of climate studies seems to point to climate change people might take this more seriously.

Also scientists =/= climate scientists.

My post doc was formerly on the review board for Nature and refused to approve a NOAA report that edited hundreds historical temperature data to make it appear that it had been colder in the past than it actually was.
He was subsequently removed from the position and the report pushed to publication without issue.

I know that's not a real source to you, but the 'real sources" are controlled by the same people who fake data and profit from doing so.

Climate change has a nice testable hypothesis thar doesn't it.

I am a scientist and don't believe in climate change.


I wouldn't trust climate "scientists" at all anyway, I had worked in the environmental field for a number of years and what I saw happen was legitimate environmental concerns have now fallen under the umbrella of "climate change". Everything else took a back seat and a number of my colleagues had to shoe horn global warming angles into their research to fulfill certain grant requirements. (I was an Environmental Forest Biologist)
Invasive plant and animal species are a far more immediate threat to ecological biodiversity than climate change and it doesn't get nearly the attention it deserves. Plants and animals can adapt to a changing climate easier than an invasive species.

Scott Dilbert BTFO the climate change scam

blog.dilbert.com/post/158159613566/how-to-convince-skeptics-that-climate-change-is-a

Science is not based on consensus. It takes only 1 person to prove everybody else wrong.

these

>also
Anyone that thinks we have accurate models of the climate that allows accurate predictions on the scale of centuries, needs to think with a few more brain cells.
> billion year old non-linear system
> chaotic system
> do we know all the inputs? ( cosmic radiation, solar cycles, etc)
> do we know the all feedback loops?
> are positive feedback loops common in nature? > what role does internal earth heating play?
> if co2 levels have been 10 times higher in the past, why didn't a runaway greenhouse effect occur?
> is are raw data accurate, over time? ( garbage in/garbage out)
> Does the IPCC follow the scientific method regarding their models?
> what about global greening? CO2 is plant food and not a pollutant.

tldr; Any "scientific consensus" driving a political issue is fishy out of the gate, and desevers extreme skeptism. Which is a good thing and the core of science. Consensus in science is just a faggot's fart in an upside down wine glass.

>I am a scientist
No you are not.

Climate (((scientists))) all agree about their "profession"? Whodathunkit

The earth is 5000 years old and climate change is a commie hoax

100% of physicists believe the Heisenberg's uncertainty theory is true. Yet somehow they are all wrong and de Broglie was right. #pilotwave

No scientist would appeal to consensus as a way of establishing truth.

The scientist presents his empirically testable hypotheses and he invites anyone to try to falsify them and find the flaws in his interpretations.

You speak Buddha

>Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.