Why is everyone anti-science nowadays Sup Forums?

Why is everyone anti-science nowadays Sup Forums?
I'd like to hear from some conservatives, as they seem to be the main ones who dont believe in climate change, evolution, etc

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/Wllc5gSc-N8
youtube.com/watch?v=0-mXXYv8KCM
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

OP is a faggot
>Uses Shill Nye for science

>Picture of someone who isn't a scientist

tell us again how science proves there are 63 genders, no differences between coherent sets of people who look similar called races, and how male and female brains on average are identical.

You get the point you cocktwits, I just used him because he was the poster boy for the recent march for science, here some black science man just for you.

Says the ice cream sex proponent, Bill Nye the fascist guy

Whos anti science?

Besides from religious retards, but they should just be ignored when it comes to anything serious.

Bill Nye
Science

Pick one
youtu.be/Wllc5gSc-N8

>who dont believe in climate change
nigs please
climate change is constant
there is still no data proving causation between said climate change and human activity.

>all scientists are liberal sjw pro trans retards

That being said, what the fuck are you talking about?

>tell us again how science proves there are 63 genders

I fucking hate everything about trannies, that being said, gender is a social and mental construct. Therefor, there are as many genders as you can think of

>no differences between coherent sets of people who look similar called races

What is genetics? Citation for a scientific study that concludes this?

>how male and female brains on average are identical.

Literally what are you talking about? citation please?

Ok, I like Bill Nye, but that's cringey as fuck. That being said, he's not suddenly wrong about everything because of this.

There's a man in office in america right now that is breaking the epa apart and has said multiple times that climate change is a hoax. Not to mention he wants to bring back COAL. If there wasnt a significant anti science trend around, drumpf wouldnt be in office. Also, if it was generally agreed upon that science is good and whatnot, there would be no need for a march for science

To support science is to embrace your own ignorance. It takes a person who doesnt have much hubris to admit that, which is why you see a lot of people attacking science.

>being this retarted

I'm genuinely sorry for you, so the 97% of scientists that conclude that man made climate change is indeed real are all lying? Are "they" paying off ALL those scientists?

i'm all for science and the scientific method...in fact i'm looking forward to seeing it being used instead of being skirted around when it doesn't fit a political narrative

You finally figured out how the world works.

bill nye is hardly even a real scientist, yet he lectures people on pseudoscience like the idea that there's many genders? his background is in mechanical engineering ffs. I do believe in climate change though.

>don't believe in climate change
>anti-science
It's like this:
That image macro you always see that says 97% of all studies etc etc specifically states that it's 97% of all studies done between 1991 and 2012. But in 2014, scientists realized that earlier estimates of what the CO2 levels were in the carboniferous period were actually way too low. When we thought the +10 degree global average temperature of the Jurassic period was caused by CO2 levels of 600ppm, that made our current levels of 400ppm seem pretty drastic. But now we know that it was actually 1800ppm, over 4 times our current levels, that caused that 10 degrees.

Simply put, while it is a fact that recent temperatures have been gradually increasing, the ratio of CO2 to temperature increase is drastically out of proportion in the data from which all of those 97% of studies were based on.

BUT by this point we have people who went into debt for college to specialize in what they thought was an impending catastrophic event. We have people who have put themselves on a moral high-horse believing themselves to be championing the cause of saving the earth from Captain Planet villains. And to get those people to process the fact that the information those decisions were based on was flawed is tantamount to getting someone to admit they've wasted their entire life on a mistake. So anyone who points out the fact that the data is errant must be painted as being in complete denial of the weather outside so they can maintain their belief that they are valiantly pursuing an absolute truth of the highest importance.
>so you don't think CO2 is affecting the temperature?
Of course it is. But not as drastically as people in the 90's thought.
>but the temperature is RISING and BLUE WATER EVENT and DESOLATE LIFELESS EARTH
Again, the CO2 levels have been almost 5x our current level before, and guess what happened *after* that?
HINT: IT WAS AN ICE AGE.

>so the 97% of scientists that conclude that man made climate change is indeed real
but they haven't
that is not their conclusion
keep kinda-reading
makes you look smart

>implies "science guy"
>means the same thing as "scientist"
retard

Lol, you're so fucking wrong about all of this it's actually hilarious

>youtu.be/Wllc5gSc-N8

Holy shit I just died of cancer. That has to be one of the most disliked youtube videos ive ever seen

low quality bait

Your sources, please?

>believing themselves to be championing the cause of saving the earth from Captain Planet villains
you forget to mention how this "proof" is being cynically and disingenuously used to attempt to retard developing competitive economies world-wide

Don't worry about your pic OP. Bill Nye, is indeed a scientist.
As for why so many people are anti science, it's because, for a certain group of people, it's become almost fashionable to be ignorant.
If you look at people with extreme political views, on both the left and right, you find endless examples of people cherry picking data to suit their beliefs. On the far right, you see this a lot with climate change, race, and economics. On the left, it's far more concentrated on social issues, which are already murky areas of science, such as gender, sexuality and child rearing.
It's simply easier to say Science is bullshit than it is to face the fact that you could be wrong.

>No argument: the post

Citations please

do your own reading, faggot
it's right in front of your face
correlation is not causation

the earth is flat and bill nye is a pedo

Being against climate change taxes and saying that evolution is not the end all/be all, is not the same thing as being against science.
Just because someone doesn't align with your political and religious views, does not mean that they are against science.

Why do conservatives always think someone is being "paid off?"

...

>I cant produce a citation, so I'll call him a fag!

Learn to debate you autistic cucklord

I love threads like this.

Its like people dont realise its getting horrendously hotter every year the moment they step outside.

It'll be funny when the anti-climate change believers swallow their words the same way the trump supporters all for the wall are dealing with having no commitment to it after 100 days.

why does the L knee-jerk

I think that man-made environmental degradation can lead to changes in weather patterns, and aside from weather changes there are other obvious reasons why we would want to curtail man's impact on the environment. I think man-made global warming was a bit of a myth, and that the sun primarily drives our planet's temperature. I think science has completely missed the mark on the unifying force of nature, which drives our weather patterns and whatnot, and they've missed it because (((they))) fund academia and issue grants to research that maintains the status quo. It also doesn't help that autists have taken over physics and replaced actual science with mathematics, so that all the formulas they come up with that look really beautiful on paper may have no real world application. (((They))) also issue the most prestigious awards to themselves and others who unwittingly lead science in the wrong direction.

Anyway, I absolutely detest Christianity and blame it for holding back progress, almost as much as I hate leftists for leading "progress" down this path of multiculturalism, decadence and degeneracy. I hate that my choices are one or the other for the future of this country, and even if we beat the communists into submission all I'll have to look forward to is some Christian theocracy. Life sucks everywhere in the world. I wonder (((who))) could be to blame?

I'm a classical liberal, actually.

...

again- if you simply search google- you'll find more than you'll need
and debate?
what is causation?
what is correlation?
what is the distinction?
tryharder

there is no anti-science nor is there an anti-science movement. This word was invented to make people who don't support climate change (or various other topics) look stupid, despite the fact that science is not created by consensus, but by actually proving theories correct.

I get you.

But the question still remains. I hear this shit about everything from them.

careful you'll scare the parrots

not conservative but evolution just seems like mass brainwashing to me. no one i've seen has a compelling reason why chimps turned into a completely different species. that's a huge leap from darwin's original theory. no one has explained where the changes in DNA in humans comes from. they just look at the most closely related species and say we must have "naturally evolved" from it without an understanding of the method. that's like child reasoning. just say you don't know like a respectable person

it is convenient however having a large number of people go through their lives thinking they're just dumb monkeys with no other possibility...../tinfoil

I've been watching a few videos on conspiracies recently, I'll try to find one for you in a sec.

Essentially, it's psychologically easier to have a singular, inherently, undeniable "bad guy" to point at instead of having things being blamed on pure random chance, chaos, or even worse, yourself.
youtube.com/watch?v=0-mXXYv8KCM

A bit long, but if you dont wanna sit through it look up why people believe in conspiracy theories and find the video by cracked, it's fairly brief

...

Calling troll because someone that professes to be science minded knows that the argument isn't that climate change is fake...the argument is...is it a crisis? The answer isn't science based. It's emotional nonsense to say it's a crisis.

This guy gets it. I guess humans caused the ice to melt after the last ice age huh? I can hear them now. "OH NO! EUROPE IS STARTING TO THAW FROM ALL THESE VOLCANOES! WHOS GONNA SAVE THE SABER TOOTH ICE MONKEYS"!!!!....Must be all humans fault...

>as they seem to be the main ones who dont believe in climate change, evolution,
You are thinking of the pious, not conservatives.

This might be the most retarded thing I've ever read.

lmao don't scare the kids with deductive logic

/Thread rekt

>scientist
>accounting minor
>voted for Trump
>would do it again in a heart beat

Those who did the march for science are fuckwits

Being against climate change taxes is not the same as not believing is climate change

not thinking evolution is the end all answer to us is not the same thing as not believing in evolution outright

I watched a really good neil degrasse tyson vid recently, talked about how we cant talk about these problems in a political sense until we acknowledge that they are indeed problems.

If people acknowledge that these are indeed problems, but have an opposing viewpoint to it, Im completely fine with that. What im particularly against is those who say climate change is a scam made by al gore to jew us hardworkin muricans out of our shekkels, and die hard creationists.

Why is Bill Nye Anti-Science? Why does he hates real Science like physics, chemistry, medicine..

He is fucking Liberal actor promoting Liberal conspiracy theories and nothing more

dude
youre a retard

you do realize you are asserting:
humans can indefinitely alter the chemical composition of the atmosphere without changing its thermodynamic properties.

your correlation does not equal causation "argument" just demonstrates a juvenille understanding of the issue.

>It also doesn't help that autists have taken over physics and replaced actual science with mathematics

Stopped reading, holy fucking cringe. You do realize that physics is literally Algebra right?

>Those who did the march for science are fuckwits
to put it mildly
desperate for social acceptance and credibility
they desperately proclaim their "intellect"

some people can be hetero-flexible. deal with it.

Implying Science is listening and believing anyone who says they're a scientist
That sounds more like a religion man. To question science is to practice science. That's the whole philosophy you antiscience pedant

Yes I know the whole causation =/= correlation thing, I also watch ASAPscience. However, that has nothing to do with climate change.

Conspiracy theories usually involve some kind of sinister or even absurd motive. The notion that someone could be taking a bribe is hardly far-fetched.

nuh uh!

>fag in the brain


The earth is flat.

Prove me wrong.

>protip.u cant.

>there is no anti science

>what are anti vaxxers

>what is denying climate change

>what is creationism

Try harder

nice try putting words in my mouth
but i never asserted any such thing
nor does that follow.
i asserted and assert:
there is no empirical evidence proving causation between human action and climate change as discussed here.
zilch
again- you don't understand deduction- to be generous

Ok, real reasons.

In the olden days, before the internet, scientists would do research, then submit their findings for peer review by other scientists to critique. Work that pass peer review was generally accepted. Other scientists then continued research, sometimes confirming and sometimes overturning previously agreed ideas. It was an ongoing process.

Normal people, accepting that they didn't have scientific knowledge or training, accepted the findings of scientists. They were smart enough to know what they didn't know. There was trust in scientists, who were good at keeping their house in order. After all, all the technical progress of the last couple of hundred years, that had lead to the industrial revolution, the treatment of once common diseases and the space race had all come from science.

Then the internet was created, and every no-nothing dumbshit suddenly had access to all the information in the world. But rather than making them smarter, it meant that they could find other idiots who posted random bullshit, which they would take as evidence for their own dumb ideas. There was no peer review for such ideas. They were just made up. Suddenly everyone was a fucking expert on everything, just so long as it agreed with their own prejudices. Smart-pants Scientists, with the precise methods and actual knowledge were seen as elitists. Why listen to intelligent people who might have bad news we don't want to hear, when some bozo online says it's all fine, and all scientists are crooks?

And that's how we go to where we are now.

Bill nye sucks monkey nuts

ya haa

Monkey nuts i tell ya

thanks for outing your own stupidity
correlation bw human activity and incr C02 level (ie) does not, as a matter of deductive logic. prove a causal connection bw the two
get it?

btw this also applies to politics.

>Video on why people believe in conspiracies
>Thumbnail is a pic of 9-11 plane crash

Nothing conspiratorial here, just the Airlines being poorly managed once again and fucking up their customers, everyone.

...

You... you realize there are many different types of physics, right? Solar physics, nuclear physics, astrophysics...?

>no one i've seen has a compelling reason why chimps turned into a completely different species

>proto chimp lives X years ago
>Proto chimp group A is in an enviornment that remained until this day in lush forests and jungles and such, keeps it's adaptations for that enviornment

>Proto chimp B was i africa, global warming and climate change changes African landscape from jungles and forests to more plains and savanahs. Proto chimp B starts getting advantages that help in that enviornment as opposed to staying in the trees (bipeadal movement, bigger brains, etc). This group becomes Humans

Now is that so hard to understand friend?

>all scentists are crooks he says.

>not all scientists agree with that mambo jumbo 'global warming' thingie.

The temperature will go up and down and back up during thepass of time.

nothing to do with no climate change.

And lol to the retards about le earth being flat...

Ok science boy but what you left out of your equations were the mass extinctions caused by these cycles. A global average of just 10 degrees one way or the other means a world of difference. Just a few degrees C and a little more carbon making the ocean more acidic is devastating to marine life.

But don't worry guys, the great barrier reef is fine, really. Nothing to see there, look somewhere else.

Sorry for dissin your set b, when I say conservatives i generally mean the retards i find in the comments section of fox news

deduction: something few cunts on this board could even define. kys self-proclaimed
non-sequitur:
PhDs all around

The earth is a globe

Prove me wrong.

>protip. u cant.
>faggot

I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make. Genuinely.

lol thank you for proving my point:
>So anyone who points out the fact that the data is errant must be painted as being in complete denial of the weather outside so they can maintain their belief that they are valiantly pursuing an absolute truth of the highest importance.

Once again, check your 97% image macro (I just KNOW you have it saved) and see that it specifies that it only counts data from 2012 and earlier. That isn't me saying scientists are crooks, that's you refusing to accept the possibility that new information rendered old theories irrelevant. Why would anyone in 2017 who's trying to make a point about scientific research deliberately use a cut-off period half a decade old? What possible purpose could disregarding the last five years of study serve if you're actually right? Wouldn't "1991-Present" be both more impressive AND relevant?
THINK about that for a minute.
You have to think. Because that's what puts the "sapiens" in "Homo Sapiens". If you're not doing that, you're just another Homo.

Well then what do you propose is increasing CO2 levels?

Keep wishing you are happy with your worldview in shreds at your feet.

I don't think anyone is denying that humans have a part in the rise of Co2 levels but you should understand that with or without human interaction this planet is heating up. Be it 100 yrs or 100000 years this rock is going to be uninhabitable by natural means even if humans never evolved to rely on fossil fuels. Are we speeding it up?....well...I'll leave that up to Bill Nye the poser guy to decide

The universe has only existed since last tuesday

Prove me wrong

>Protip, you cant, faggot

I also just died of cancer . How is this even allowed to be distributed publicly. Cringe at its finiest ... NYE bopping his head along took the cake

Get your coal mining job back yet?
>so much shill

/thread

I doubt the lack of evidence. Not science. The problem is that real scientists are few and far between these days. Since when is it a bad thing to be skeptical?

...

Nigger if you watched the video you would know he never says that 9/11 is a conspiracy theory or that it isnt.

"there is no empirical evidence provising causation between human action and climate change"

for this to be true, this would mean that human alteration of the chemical composition of the atmosphere does not change its thermodynamic properties.

humans are altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere (irrefutable, apolitical)

altering the chemical composition of a gas alters its thermodynamic properties (irrefutable, apolitical)

these alterations may lead to large scale climate disruptions etc (possible, atmospheric modeling is difficult, apolitical)

we should alter the ways we produce and consume energy in order to avoid human-caused climate disruption, for the sake of preserving humanitys ability to survive (political)

denying any of the first three points is unscientific. politics/opinion can only enter the discussion when discussing a course of action.

where in my post did I mention climate change? It was a general post about anti-science idiocy online.
I've genuinely never seen that macro you keep banging on about.
And you're doing a "homo sapiens" gag? I'm going to take a wild guess that you're not an actual scientist.

>uninhabitable by natural means
Only if we don't have a culling. Libtards and trannies need to be killed.

I think the reason there will never be a cure for homosexuality is because the kind of people that would want to fund research into that are the kind of people who dont really care for real science,
all it would take is some charlatan to come up to them mumble some official sounding pseudoscience nonsense and they'd be convinced of the fake cure,
then they'd double down and claim all those guys that used it but later got caught trying to have gay anonymous sex are part of a conspiracy to discredit it.

You realize you do math in every single type of physics right? Show me one field of physics where you dont use math

...

Scientists don't prove science is right, they just blindly use science hoping it's right but if they opened up a Bible they would know the truth!