97% of climate scientists agree

>97% of climate scientists agree
Can someone remind me how these scientists get their funding for research?

Other urls found in this thread:

pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

That is correct user.

>create scare
>go to government
>"the world's ending, give me money and maybe it won't"
>give money
>world doesn't end
>repeat

Government, research institutions, etc.

Many individual scientists have done their own independent experiments and been able to replicate results to some extent.

Stop being paranoid

>been able to replicate results to some extent
>to some extent
>some exent
>some
>ome
>me
>e

I have done this so I will explain first hand. It is not so much the funding that matters although there is a historical process for whether scientists continue to get funding. The real bottleneck is the peer review process. At one time, the peer review process was intended to make sure discoveries were real and truthful. Now, the peer review process is about testing an idea or result based on the current publications. The job of scientists is not really to do research that benefits all people as much as it is to do research in line with previous research and current research beliefs. This is because the "experts" are the enablers of the atrocities of the Establishment. Much like the "doctors" who sell products on tv. Experts make science appear to back up the Establishment. An recent example is Fukushima. National Geographic did a piece on global warming and discussed the Pacific Ocean, but didn't once mention Fukushima. This is actually somewhat correct. However, the real reason was never mentioned because any scientist who talks about the irradiated boats caught in ports (see clinton boat that they thought was carrying nuclear weapons) or the boats which disappear at sea from trackers when in the Fukushima drift area and then reappear once outside again are not taken seriously as scientists in our current environment.

>everything I don't like is liberal conspiracy
>everybody else is snowflakes

Pick one, the alt-right

All of the priests of Ptah, Magnificent and Terrible, agree that an insufficient number of feminists in the world will prompt Ptah to destroy the Earth by fire and black air. I would know, being a High Chancellor in the Church of Ptah.

Why does the above statement strike you as ridiculous bullshit, but the one quoted by OP doesn't and even on Sup Forums it's attracts only a weak-ass conspiracy theory? Because you don't believe in Ptah and thus aren't conditioned to treat His priests as unquestionable authority. Think about it.

>it's attracts
it attracts, sorry, I'm drunk

were you trying to make some sort of point there?

Mostly just being a dick, I know you guys are incapable of the kind of self awareness getting the joke would take

Shit flinging is not actually an argument m8. I know you guys often confuse the two.

...

well what do you expect, where is an individual scientist supposed to get the funding needed to carry out the same expirements carried out by government-spnsored institutions? Be realistic.

>97% of climate scientists agree
Can someone give me a rundown on what they actually agree on? All I could find is this paper
pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full

that deduces 97% of the climate scientists agree that man-made climate change is real. This paper seems to be cited everywhere. I find it suspicious that one paper is being used as the cornerstone of an important discussion.

Results that can be replicated. You know, the thing that makes science more than just pissing about in a lab coat.

>Can someone give me a rundown on what they actually agree on?
The 97% number is fake news. It's based on a shitty survey with less than 100 scientists responding.

They agreed on the following:
1: Climate changes
2: Humans have some level of impact whatsoever on the climate.

how can they get the same results/any results when they dont have the funding and equipment needed to carry out the same experiments large institutions carry out? your argument isnt even an argument, just spouting anything to decieve any poor idiots lurking this thread.

Thanks user.

Irrelevant. If the results can't be replicated then what they are doing is not science.

Replication is the foundation of scientific proof - No ifs or buts.

but they don't agree

Government grants from climate initiatives that wouldn't exist without the fear of global warming. Also, in order to publish, they need to have about 3 randomly selected, experienced climate scientists go over their results and green-light them for publication.

Climate change is happening. You can see the ice caps receding. However it remains to be seen how serious it will be. In terms of impact on humans it's been a big nothingburger and will probably continue to be. And yes, you can only get funding if you agree with consensus.

It isn't about some ridiculous conspiracy in which Jews pay every single climatologist on a planet to agree with the NWO agenda. It's about who's getting to set public policy. Why do you care what scientists think? Why does anyone? Since when is the world a global theocracy where a word of an unaccountable, unelected group is law?

That's not true. A majority of "climate" researchers don't see any evidence of global warming or climate change outside normal cyclical patterns.