Global warming

97 percent of scientists say humans are causing it.

Why does Sup Forums refuse to accept this?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=WDWEjSDYfxc
nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle
web.archive.org/web/20080213042858/http://www.skepticalscience.com/page.php?p=3
nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2271140/
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.10079/abstract;jsessionid=F7CE43E76C6B6AF7D965CF1A2F1C7E34.f02t03
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707610015
nature.com/index.html?file=/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1436.html
nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1454.html
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289614000178
genome.cshlp.org/content/14/9/1679.short
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1800886/
populartechnology.net/2014/12/all-97-consensus-studies-refuted-by.html
lternet.edu/research/keyfindings/soil-microbes-and-agriculture
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin's_Fallacy
youtube.com/watch?v=yTTaXqVEGkU
news.berkeley.edu/2012/04/02/fertilizer-use-responsible-for-increase-in-nitrous-oxide-in-atmosphere/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin's_Fallacy#Response_to_Edwards
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1041608013001556
newrepublic.com/article/115787/rising-iq-scores-dont-mean-greater-intelligence
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Because we're a bunch of drooling retards.

didn't know majority of Sup Forums denied global warming

also citation on that 97%

youtube.com/watch?v=WDWEjSDYfxc

If anythibg , it's the chinese destroying the planet. They have factories and pollute everywhere. Most we do is just have a shit load of garbage

Sup Forums, despite all of its grand standing, is controlled by the jews who use oil to control nations.

The sooner we can remove reliance on oil the sooner we won't rely on the middle east, and the sooner we can ignore the kikes and their mewling.

Because Sup Forums lives in a fantasy land. They deny science of all kinds. They hate the reality that genetics refutes their ideals of racism. They hate climate change. They hate actually events in history that have been documented to have happened.

Most of them are paranoid delusional that believe everything is a conspiracy. They're one of the most anti-intellectual and anti-authority groups out there.

>genetics refutes ideals of racism

prove it

I don't, why do liberals insist on wiping out the most scientifically accomplished race on the verge of an ecological disaster?

The 97% crap was an Australian shitpost you liberal faggots love to puke up constantly.

>“only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed.

Surely the most suspicious “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded.

nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

From the skeptical science website, ran by the great Australian scientist John Cook:

>This site was created by John Cook. I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist and web programmer by trade

web.archive.org/web/20080213042858/http://www.skepticalscience.com/page.php?p=3

nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2271140/

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.10079/abstract;jsessionid=F7CE43E76C6B6AF7D965CF1A2F1C7E34.f02t03

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707610015

nature.com/index.html?file=/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1436.html

nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1454.html

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289614000178

genome.cshlp.org/content/14/9/1679.short

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1800886/

>inb4 science is a jewish conspiracy!

((((scientists))))

Because science is not a popularity contest.

All the 97% meme studies have been debunked.

populartechnology.net/2014/12/all-97-consensus-studies-refuted-by.html

>the genetic variation of individuals is greater than the races between them
>therefore race dont real

Nah. See Lewontins fallacy.

> science is democracy and theories are established by vote instead facts and experiments
Yeah, right.

lternet.edu/research/keyfindings/soil-microbes-and-agriculture


contemporary farming methods are most likely causing global warming

taxing people for their carbon footprint isn't going to resolve this

>Muh Consensus.

1. Science is not a democracy.

2. The "Consensus" has been debunked ages ago.

3. Man Made Climate Change is a hoax.

4. You are a mongoloid.

5. Kill yourself.

Retarded meme. Also, Edward's critique is incorrect. Edwards even admitted the findings are correct, but tried to argued you could still classify races. Edwards so proved incorrect.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin's_Fallacy

scientists are not always right

the good old 97% meme...
When will liberals start to inform themselves instead of being corporate media slaves
youtube.com/watch?v=yTTaXqVEGkU

That's why trump should bring all these factories and jobs to america, so we can bring all the fucked up pollution closers to home :)

>never forget the 97 (gorillion) percent

>sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289614000178

Lol if you read this study it even says that genetics have a significant cause on intelligence. It's consistent witb a 50% genetics 50% enviornment hypothesis.

Sup Forums is the dullest saw in the tool box and a burnt out bulb on the Christmas tree.

This is a thread meant to slide something else, either the warrant canary thread/s, or the ruski-blackout-NATO thread.

No way that these two just so happened to post a reply 26 seconds after the creation of the thread, both a small and stupid reply.

The number is higher than 97% and more like 99.9% at this point in time.

news.berkeley.edu/2012/04/02/fertilizer-use-responsible-for-increase-in-nitrous-oxide-in-atmosphere/

Check this out, too. Turns out that using shitty, non-shit-based fertilizer, is really JUST'ing our environment.

Your "environment vs genetics" thinking proves you don't understand the problem. It's about gene-environment interactions.

Also, you'd have to prove that different "races" have different genetics for intelligence, regardless of how heritable it is. This is not observed.

Stop fucking citing Legates, he's been bought off by ExxonMobil. That's not a conspiracy theory, he's a member of several conservative think tanks -- he might actually have headed some of them, I can't remember -- that've received direct funding from Exxon to deny climate change. He's been called out for this conflict of interest many times. His beliefs are also religiously-motivated.

From Wikipedia, there's this gem of a letter that he attached his name to:
"We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."

>Humans caused climate change

So, what exactly are people using as a control in order to limit the change in climate to the effect of human activity?

#1 cause is fucking cows
god damn I hate cows
they shit everywhere and produce methane more than EVERYTHING ELSE COMBINED WHICH IS 10 TIMES WORSE THAN CARBON DIOXIDE

Because you can you fucking retarded idiot.

The genetic variation (FsT) of chimpanzees is greater amongst chimpanzee populations compared to humans.

Yet no scientist would say we aren't a different species.

But the large majority of greenhouse gas produced is co2. The largest problems are longhaul trucking, cars, planes, and shipping.

I wouldn't exactly call Chinese, Muslims or Africans "human".

>Be climate change scientist
>Attend IPCC meetings with all other climate change scientists.
>No climate change, no research
>Purpose of existence as climate change scientist is null if global warming does not exist.

Can't deny or prove desu. When politics play into science that's where the bullshit happens.

>Stop fucking citing Legates, he's been bought off by ExxonMobil.
Who told you that? John Crook? The man bought off my AlGore/U.N.

Why are you so delusional as to think that Warmists are not corrupted by their funding but skeptics are?

Q: What do you call a (untenured) publicly funded climate "scientist" who denies climate change?
A: Unemployed.

This is perfectly observable in adoption studies you idiot. Blacks adopted by whites still had lower IQs than their biological white children raised in the same enviorment

While mixed race children had IQs in the middle.

>w-we haven't identified the genes yet

Neither have we for height, but heightness is considered to be highly heritable.

Fst. Fixation INDEX. Indexes are not metrics. You can't take indexes from different studies and compare them. For calling someone else a retard, you need to learn the difference between a metric and an index.

Also, the entire human population is more closely related to each other than troops of chimpanzees separated by a few hundred miles. We have far less genetic diversity than any other apes. This is because we started with a relatively small population that went through a series of bottlenecks that quickly expanded to a population of 7 billion.

Stop citing a self-employeed cartoonist and calling him a scientist.

The 97% meme is bullshit.

>This is perfectly observable in adoption studies you idiot.
It's observed in a single flawed adoption study done in the 70s.

Other studies like trans-continental adoption studies show people take on the average IQ of their adopted country.

And again, the question is not how heritable things are. It's a question of different races having different heritablily. Intelligence is though tot be very complex with hundreds to thousands of genes contributing to it. If our genetic diversity was so drastically different, it would contradict everything we've already studied about human genetics.

>97 percent of scientists

No. The argument that lewontin made was because FsT is much greater in populations than between them, race has no validity.

The argument Edwards made is that even though this is technically true, the relatively small genetic variations between populations still have a massive impact. And you can classify races based on that.

Again, more genetic variation between chimpanzees than between chimpanzees and humans. We're the same species, right?

>No. The argument that lewontin made was because FsT is much greater in populations than between them, race has no validity.
It's been verified through multiple studies and the results are repeatable. Your emotions don't trump facts.

Edwards was also later proven wrong.

As for the chimpanzee thing, I've already explained that. It's clear you don't understand the science or even understand the difference between a metric and an index.

>single flawed study

No it has been replicated multiple times.

Find me one adoption study where the black-white IQ gap was closed. You simply cannot. In every Western country, blacks have a lower IQ than the native whites.

Just a glance at the scores during the ages tested proves my point. The gap is lowest during childhood while it increases during adolescence and adulthood. This is consistent with genetics playing a smaller role during childhood and a much bigger one during adulthood.

Which university is more respectable: Prager University or Trump University?

For the longest time we thought weather control was just a conspiracy.

Now its a necessity.

Again, Edwards argued this is this irrelevant. Small varoations have MASSIVE impacts when it comes to genetics. You fail to understand this.

If you are going to argue against my chimp example and using FsT, then why do you and every libshit scientist continue to use it when it comes to humans and claim that races are not real?

Just because there's a gap doesn't implying it's genetic. You can't say it's genetic without any evidence based in genetics, either.

You also still fail to understand how genetics works. It's not something deterministic.

It's not that fixation distances are a flawed system.. it's that you don't understand what they are. Look up the difference between an index and a metric.

Check out this learned geneticist. I bet this nigga spends all day in the lab. Has his whole research center on google.com.

this

In general...

Specifically. Fuck it.

>doesn't mean it's genetic

Considering no enviornmental factor has been shown to account for all of the gap, we can reasonably assume that genetics play a part in intelligence. IQ has been shown to be highly hereditary in studies looking at twins.

Why is the IQ gap between blacks and whites lowest during childhood but highest during adulthood? This is perfectly consistent with the theory that genetics plays a far bigger role during later life.

Edwards was not proven wrong you idiot. Read the article.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin's_Fallacy#Response_to_Edwards

Both him and Lewontin are right. Lewontin is right in claiming that most genetic variation is in populations than between them, Edwards is correct is saying that even though the genetic variation between populations is much smaller than in them, that variation no matter how small it is still has a massive impact and you can accurately classify races with almost-certain accuracy off loci based on that.

Also, the climate is changing, but climate change is also a natural process.

You can't separate what the net human influence on that change is without A) a control group or B) know what every single other influence on climate change is, and what it does.

appeal to authority and appeal to popularity are both logical fallacies

What they're saying may not necessarily be true, it could be motivated by politics / grants

nigger i believe in global warming.racism is backed up by genetics you dumb cunt.whites are inherently superior and you would know so if you took any college biology class

49°15'33"N 5°24'30"E

Edwards wrote that in 2003. We've been studying human genetics and evolution ever since we had the tools to do so; about 50 years. As my original links point out Edwards was later proven wrong.

Just because all of the research done doesn't coincide with your emotions don't discount decades of genetics research.

And again, if you are going to claim that the genes relating to intelligence haven't been fully found yet, the same could be said of height. Yet pretty much every scientist agrees heightness is highly hereditary.

>(((zimmerman)))
cant trust this one

The most greenhouse effect gas is the water vapour (>95%) and yet the excess of CO2 become absorbed by the oceans. Global warming is just a tool to make sanctions and to manipulate the market.

You can shitpost on this anime board as much as you like. It doesn't change the facts and it doesn't change that you don't understand the science and refuse to learn it.

It doesn't rain co2. The water cycle is self stabilizing. The co2 in the atmosphere takes a long time to be sequestered and global warming has nothing but positive feedbacks.

scientists also say that cutting your dick off is a good way to fix a tranny

>all the research since then have proven edwards wrong

No they haven't. They merely replicate Lewontins findings which nobody has disputed. Read your own study.

>fst is greater in populations than between them race isn't real

Which again, as Edwards proved is fucking irrelevant because the remaining variation while smaller can be still used to classify different races with near 100 percent accuracy when several loci are examined at the same time.

Your response to multiple studies was "muh lewontin's fallacy"

With your level of understanding of science I doubt you actually read any of my links.

>97 percent of scientists
dental hygienists know nothing about climate change

That's opposite, most of scientists believe global warming is fabricated if they ever read the researches.
However left wing politicians have to make us believe global warming for money.
You'll see what's happening if you search climategate by yourself.
This is a modern tragedy for humanity.

Problem with climate science is that the scientists who research it are making money hand over fist by claiming its true

The other scientists know nothing about it and/or too afraid to say something about it.

Denying or questioning climate science as a scientist is akin to being a devout Christain and a scientist.

And you can continue the massive i.pact that genetics play in determining intelligence. I don't care.


>b-but muh flynn effect

Flynn effect does not occur on g. It has nothing to do with generalized intelligence.

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1041608013001556
newrepublic.com/article/115787/rising-iq-scores-dont-mean-greater-intelligence

The rising iq scores amongst niggers in the last decades does not correspond to an increase in their general intelligence.

I live in Florida, the place that they said would be underwater by now. When I go to the gulf coast beach near me, the water line is exactly where it has always been. Not an inch higher or lower. I'm not saying it's all lies, but obviously something is not right about the predictions.

Because they are all essentially making the same claim.

>genetic variation is greater in populations than between them
>this means race does not exist

The same tired argument that has been addressed multiple times.

Continue to deny*

>scientists
lol

This has lost a lot of meaning. People now think that psychologists and sociologists are scientists.

Not all Zimmerman's are kikes. Many wetbacks, some German. Red-pilled? Please prove kikery.

>And you can continue the massive i.pact that genetics play in determining intelligence. I don't care.
What are you even trying to say?

>Flynn effect
I never even mentioned it.

>bad retorts to pre-made strawman
lel

>newrepublic.com
kek

Look, you're not going to change reality. Maybe you should write Nature and tell them all the stuff they published is wrong.

Nope, you just can't read and refuse to learn the science. End of story.

Dont think anyone ever said Florida would be underwater by now. Also your evidence isn't actual evidence at all. You must be fucking with me here.

The fundamental fallacy is comparing apples to oranges!!

APPLE = within populations comparisons
ORANGES = between population means comparisons

The "within populations" (like race) variation is average differences between individuals.
The "between populations" (like between 2 races) is the difference between the average values of different races.

That's A Fundamental Category Error! Comparing differences between population mean values to differences between individuals. Apples to apples means comparing differences between INDIVIDUALS within races vs. between races. Its easy enough to show what the right answer is by a little number crunching:

a) Average IQ Difference between individuals within (white) race: 15
b) Average IQ Difference between individuals between (white and black) races 15*sqrt(2) = 21. (the square root of 2 comes from central limit theorem).

SHEESH! This is the most elementary mistake. And Lewotonin got away with it because he's a good little commie.

SUMMARY: When you compare apples to apples "individuals within race differences" to individuals between race differences; yup between races is much larger. And that's why you should disregard commie pseudo-scientists!

>Science is all a conspiracy!

>Scientists say it must be so, so it has to be real!
These same people laugh at religions for the same logic. Get fucked.

SEE HERE!
The argument based on variation is fundamentally flawed because it compares apples to oranges.

I'm not disputing the findings that the variations are greater in populations than in them, but this does not negate the concept of race.

Your studies keep essentially replicating what Lewontin said. It is irrelevant as I have pointed out.

>new republic

New Republic is leftist as fuck.

Fucking tree huggers

Don't have an answer do you.

Making fundamental statistical errors is not a conspiracy. Its stupidity.

Read

I've actually read these studies.
They're propagandist and junk science.
Here's some examples:
>human genome project. Supposed to be THE defining list of humans.
>doesn't map over 10% of the human genome.
How about that "more variants within a race than between races"?
>study treats all genes the same for comrarison, either yes same/ no different.
>genes that control fingernail growth treated the same as genes that control brain complexity.
If you actually read them and had an understanding of taxonomy or biology- you'd know they're all propaganda.
Its not the similarlities that matter- its the differences that create new species.
It only takes ONE gene to create a new organism, doesn't matter if 99.9999% of the rest are the same.

I accept the idea of anthropogenic global warming.

However the greenhouse effect is fucking retarded idiot "science".

It's not the fucking "greenhouse faggot retard idiot effect".

It's disruption in heat transit caused by agricultural practices.

So fuck you.
You have to be a fucking ignorant retard that has absolutely zero scientific understanding to believe in the greenhouse effect.

It's literally the most retarded thing anybody has ever come up with.

You're implying that somehow he was wrong, and it was accepted because he was a "good commie" rather than accepting the evidence.

You're claiming everyone is accepting something incorrect. You're claiming the science is a conspiracy.

>propaganda
Yep! science is all a conspiracy!

Don't have an answer do you? Explain, with specificity, how the statistical category error that I described did not actually occur.

lol these bumbo ockers would get a galliwag if they hopped down the franda and tried sturbin while havin a 4x fucking poofta cunts need some amber fluid put down tha books ya poofs tie im up an let im get the bities and drag im off on a bike an put maccas bag on is ed then say booya not even avin time for this flat out like a lizard scoot scoot watch ya lip

The liberal presentation of those studies is propaganda.
Again, read them. I have.

Can't answer my statistical assertion can you?
You say "evidence" yet I showed that the fundamental statistical argument is deeply flawed.

How about some non-flawed statistical analysis buddy?

>10k+ surveys mailed out

>3k returned

>70-something surveys hand-picked

>97% of the hand-picked surveys agree with us

>You're implying that somehow he was wrong, and it was accepted because he was a "good commie" rather than accepting the evidence.

No I'm saying that his argument is specious. Most everyone falls for it. I fell for it, except that something gnawed at me that kept saying "there's a reasoning error here." And there's a huge one: Comparing average population differences to average differences between individuals. Its totally comparing apples to oranges. And a huge mistake.

No one is implying that it is a popularity contest. You are just too stupid (and autistic) to understand that when people cite the 99.9% of scientists support... it is because we want to show there is practically 100% scientific consensus on global warming and that humans are responsible for it. The science has been properly documented and available for anyone to access it.

read
Also, your "argument" is bogus. The problem has nothing to go with "comparing means between groups." You invented a non-problem and make some bogus answer to fix it, pretending that this fabrication will somehow debunk 50 years of genetics evidence.

I believe it. NOAA isn't exactly a "Jew run organization". Many atmospheric scientists are actually quite conservative in comparison to their academic counterparts in other fields.

That being said, meteorologists in general are more skeptical than their climatology counterparts because they understand how unreliable modeling can be even with constantly updated real time weather obs