Why do people who haven't graduated from college think they know more about climate change than the vast majority of...

Why do people who haven't graduated from college think they know more about climate change than the vast majority of scientists?

Other urls found in this thread:

friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7139797.stm
aaas.org/sites/default/files/migrate/uploads/aaas_climate_statement.pdf
acs.org/content/acs/en/policy/publicpolicies/promote/globalclimatechange.html
sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-Statement_August-2013.pdf
aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm
nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycorrhizal_network
hemp.com/hemp-education/uses-of-hemp/hemp-fuel/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

because scientists are paid off by jews and soros or something.

Do you really believe that?

no, climate change is not a hoax and is very real, too much data to turn a blind eye to it.

Because Trump say's its a hoax and they all know he's right about everything.

You know.. like he was right about Obama's birth certificate

I think this is an issue on which pol and trump have gone full autist.
Shame really, shows how far some people are willing to bury their heads in the sand

Did you finally get a proxy you leaf fag?

friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3

it's called indoctrination

>vast majority of scientists

will this meme ever die?

and before you call me a heritic, climate does change... humans have little to do with and are completely powerless to stop it as its a natural process.

You are implying that people are single issue voters over the environment
I care a lot about the environment, but I agree with Trump on 90% of other issues

Coal and fracking are awful of course, we all need to go nuclear with Canadian fission reactors until fusion is viable

Show me a model of man made climate change which has corrected predicted anything, I'll wait.
Or do you believe there was no arctic ice last summer? :^)
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7139797.stm
>"Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.
>"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."

>b-but muh science man on the tv and muh un climate club say it's really true this time

(((scientists)))

Oh look this thread again.

Relize the fucking difference between global warming and man made global warming you cunt.

One is happening, The other is pushed on us, data manipulated, graphs skeewed and numbers lied about.

Guess which is which you fucking kike.

The 97% of scientists agree mankind is the driving force behind global warming/climate change is a lie. Only 1.6% out of 10,000 peer-reviewed papers on the subject (that took a stance) said mankind is the cause.

Climatologists don't know why it's happening, there's no scientific consensus!

But virtually none that humans are causing it and that paying more taxes(that china doesn't have to pay) will fix it, so very easy to turn a blind eye to it.

I'm not sure what point you are making? That 75 out of 77 climate scientists believe climate change is a real problem? What's the meme?

The issue of climate change could be easily solved if you had the balls to debate any of the people who are against it. Kind of like Bill Nye did with Ken Ham, remember that? I'm not saying those two guys are the experts when it comes to the existence of God, but they are famous people, their debate was hyped up and everyone got to see Ken Ham make a fool out of himself when having to defend his position. However, when it comes to climate change, it's like you are afraid to debate these people and shut down the conversation once and for all so until you do that there will never be a consensus on who is right and who is wrong.

there is a clear scientific consensus that anthropogenic climate change caused by industrialization and the burning of fossil fuels. Please provide your source on the 1.6% figure.

Here are mine for the scientific consensus

aaas.org/sites/default/files/migrate/uploads/aaas_climate_statement.pdf

acs.org/content/acs/en/policy/publicpolicies/promote/globalclimatechange.html

sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-Statement_August-2013.pdf

aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

These organizations full of scientists must be wrong tho, what do I know

oh and don't forget NASA and NOAA, they literally have webpages dedicated to anthropogenic climate change

>advocacy groups agree with me.

Because they're idiots. Also confirmation bias.

I really wish Trump would change his mind on climate change and net neutrality. He'd be the perfect president.

because college students were all given the same shitty models that turned out to not be true but they still believe them for some reason. sorry al gore there is just as much arctic ice as there was 100 years ago. fucking retards.

Because they don't understand the science behind greenhouse gases...

Of course those advocacy groups agree on anthropogenic climate change. If there was no evidence for anthropogenic climate change, they wouldn't exist. What kind of shitty dismissal is that? Try not using a genetic fallacy. Debate the data, not the source.

>American Association for the Advancement of Science
>American Chemical Society
>American Geophysical Union
>American Physical Society (Physics)
>The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, Medicine.

Yeah all those advocacy groups whose work is heavily based on physical sciences. Don't forget the 12,000 people that work for the NOAA, they all support human induced climate change as well, and NASA

>vast majority of scientists
>75 out of thousands agree
>merely a coincidence those are the one's that profit the most for pushing the narrative of doom and gloom.

Don't be dumb.

Because their research grants don't depend on believing it. Now GTFO.

stop shooping the graphs, OP
Heres originals

...

...

And energy companies benefit from pushing the idea that anthropogenic climate change doesn't exist.

Guess we can't trust anyone, huh?

If only a majority of scientists believe it, doesn't that mean some don't? Why should we discount their skepticism?

It had nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with normies being fed up with being seen as ignorant by every one of the media elitists.

Trump was a good way to tell them to go fuck themselves. He was being attacked just as the uneducated normies were being attacked, except Trump was actually kicking the media's ass.

>Why do people who haven't graduated from college think they know more about (environment, economics, econmoies, immigration, crime, fairness and tolerance, etc) than the vast majority of (insert anyone else)?


Fixed it for you.

nobody debates the climate changes, fucktard. They just differ on whether HUMANS are the sole cause of our current warming trend. You want to see a crazy number?

.00000000000015

That's the percentage of the earth's mass that the ENTIRE human biomass takes up. 1.5 TRILLIONTH. All of human biomass, our selves, our emissions, our carbon leavings, our waste, our breath, is 1.5 TRILLIONTH the size of the earth's mass with all its interconnected systems.

I have a supremely hard time thinking that .00000000000015 of anything would have an affect on the whole. This is like, homeopathic nonsense.

Dunning-kruger

The problem isn't that we aren't sure there is no man made impact on the environment.

The problem is what the fuck do you want us to do about it?

Where do we go from here? Do you honestly think pushing for green friendly regulations on cars and electronics are going to save world resources? Are we supposed to elect politicians just because they say pollution is bad?

We need to do a complete overhaul on our society in order to fix our impact on the environment. We have to change everything.

College students don't understand that shit. They just want to have moral high ground in political discussions while still driving cars and living in cities that produce plastic waste and landfills.

They're a bunch of hypocrites

That's not how any of that works.

>implying we give a fuck
>implying we can still prevent global warming without powering your iphone
>implying we aren't prepping for a war
>implying gender studies and liberal arts qualifies you as intelligent

The majority of educated and uneducated white people past 40 went for Trump.

this.

so you want less coal and oil, but nuclear of any kind is off the table and hydro electric dams and windmills which slaughter migratory species are cool as well as those solar panels made from rare minerals and cost more energy to produce than they make back in 100 years?

Cool. Alright. Sure.

This

Why should I care? Answer that.

No one is going to stop it. Here you are using electricity to lecture me, but in the end if it is us causing it we'll die so it's a self correcting problem.

What does not graduating college have to do with scientists? Most college grads don't study sciences.

Because those people don't give a flying fuck about climate change, they just want their jobs.

Even if Climate Change was manmade, it'd take thousands and thousands of years to reverse the damage and China gives 0 fucks about the environment, good luck stopping them.

We are polluting goy
So we put a tax to fund the UN
We will pollute the same but you'll have to pay us each time you pollute and we will use that money wisely
Trust us goy
This is what climate change is a hoax.
It's not that humans have an effect but what consequences they propose.
Wish is to fund the NWO with CO2 taxes
And I say fuck that
Climate change, so what? It allways has, we have coats and boats, nothing to worry about.

nobody gives a shit about climate change. do you think any one in america cares if some ghey little desert becomes more of a waste land? of course not

if they all die from heat exhaustion so be it their god has forsaken them and they never shut up about their god so that is a appropriate comment

College education isn't a silver bullet. Doctors, economists, lawyers, scientists, ect all go to college. These people make mistakes EVERYDAY.

because the "scientists" keep getting caught lying

Why does that seem like a conflicting statistic to me?

>who cares if all the predictions have been flat wrong, the science is settled
>also we need another 500 million dollars to study it

The solution to climate change is not to take out government debt that has to be payed by future generation to create shitty alternative energy sources that cost more energy to create than they produce in their lifetime. That's assuming climate change is even affected by a concerning amount by humans.

The climate has never been static. It has always changed. We've had ice ages come and go. Periods of extreme warmth also come and go. We've had periods with much higher co2 in the atmosphere. And these changes have happened before we began during ANY fossil fuels. AGA is made for communists as a tool for grabbing ever greater power.

>OY VEY GOYIM THE ISLANDS ARE GOING TO SINK BY THE YEAR 2000
>OY VEY GOYIM THE EAST COAST IS GOING TO BE UNDERWATER BY 2010
>OY VEY GOYIM THE ICE CAPS ARE GONNA MELT BY 2015

They've been wrong so many times, and continue to be laughably wrong at every turn. If you honestly don't realize that global warming is just another kike hoax to control the world economy, you are a retard.

people still cant understand this. the earth goes back and forth. too much carbon and it reverts to fix itself. i became convinced that the planet is somewhat conscience and is aware. not too farfetched if you actually spend time learning things.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycorrhizal_network

Who is this and where can I find porn of her?

seeing as i now have to pay for my rubbish by weight due to climate change i think i'd rather deny it then have to be taxed out the arse to combat it

it shouldn't be the peasants responsibility because a company in China dumps 3'000 gallons of shite into their rivers each week

i don't care if the sun burned out tomorrow in my view climate change is inevitable and the mass hysteria being manufactured by the elite is just a ponzi scheme to tax the life out of ye

"Data" is purposefully skewed to create a narrative that helps certain groups prove their points. The same temp monitor locations they used 60 years ago used to be mostly rural. Now, they have urban development all around them which create localized heating effects, not GLOBAL warming. LOOK UP ORCHARD FIELD AIRPORT CLIMATE FOR AN EXAMPLE.

so science is a process where ideas in development are 100% correct the first time and any of the supporting data must also be false because the conclusion was wrong

pornhub.com/view_video.php?viewkey=ph574e644900a7a

Yes, I know that science is about constantly replacing obsolete theories with ones based on new data. I get that. The point I'm making about (((climate change))) is that they haven't been wrong just one or two times. They've been wrong about literally everything. They consistently lie about everything as well. There is no "muh scientific consensus." There are plenty of scientists who believe that (((climate change))) is a highly politicized and biased study, and the supposed effects of it are grossly overexaggerated, as is evidenced by their being wrong about literally every single prediction they've made. Look up Freeman Dyson. He's one of the most notable skeptics of this Jew-funded pseudoscience.

some sciences are heavily politicized and therefore worthless.
case in point: economics

Orwell presented this tactic used by the left in animal farm. Take a natural occurrence such a normal climate cycles and blame it on those you disagree with. Anthropologic climate change is a myth used just as napoleon blames snowball for knocking down the windmill when it was just a wind storm. These are old commie tactics.

Whole solar system is heating up.

Maybe they'll tell you that one day when they actually admit why saturn is changing colors.

good, now convince me that the scientists behind these studies are objective and unbiased

muh grant shekels

I'd like to know this also. Scientists paid with generous grants to study man-made climate change. Big surprise they find it. Keep getting paid with more grants to continue studying it.

If they ever find it's not true, grant money goes away.

Where's the oversight? The Obama administration that keeps promoting the need for eliminating traditional energy sources that cause climate change?

Trump won most of America, so does that mean that most of America are retards? This is a shit statistic and whoever worked on it got their shekels.

Theres also a psychological aspect to it - many of these "researchers" themselves have been taught in liberal schools and spent much of their lives believing it. Its very difficult to admit to even yourself that you've been fooled and living a lie, even when faced with contrary evidence.

Now you're getting it.

>Based on 24k sample of 60 million vote

Why do we take this seriously again?

science is a hoax

Everyone on the internet thinks they are right about everything.

how is data purposefully skewed? as a practicing statistician I'm genuinely interested in this new technique

how to combat climate change, improve the economy, reduce crime, clean cheap energy, medicine and many other uses

>pic

hemp.com/hemp-education/uses-of-hemp/hemp-fuel/

>pic.

It's pretty much impossible to take anyone spouting memes seriously. I wonder how you people act in the real world. Like do you genuinely buy into the jew thing? I get it when it was all ironic and funny here on Sup Forums years ago, but lately its just constant edgyness and none of the jokes.

Simple. You take data perhaps from 1000 temperature reading locations and "refine" it down to maybe 300 locations. You cherrypick data that serves your agenda and jettison data that doesn't. Years ago we used a much larger scope of temp recording locations around the world. This had been dwindled down greatly over the last 20 years. Theres a reason for that.

I don't mean it seriously.

this

Humans are causing a increase in today's temperature. Just look at the amount of CO2 emissions we put up in the atmosphere, and tell me it's caused by something else.

In 2013 a study by the Italian National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology claimed that nearly 600 million tons of co2 are emitted by volcanoes annually. Then add on the co2 emitted by other natural means such a decomposition of organic materials and occurrences such as forest fires etc.

>Like do you genuinely buy into the jew thing?

To an extent. I don't blame Jews for everything, although I do believe that they've played a disproportionately large role in causing the problems we talk about on Sup Forums (cultural Marxism, mass immigration etc.). It wasn't all Jews responsible for these things, there were some very good goyim that helped with these things, (such as Ted Kennedy shilling hard for the 1965 Immigration Act) but they have been involved in these things in a role disproportionate to their population size.

In this context, I'm using the Jews somewhat as a meme to represent the establishment, but, like I said before, Jews disproportionately benefit and are involved in shilling for these climate change initiatives.

animal agriculture should be the first to go (and relatively easy - stop eating animals) and their waste will be reduced

wont solve everything but definitely a great first step

produces more waste than the transport industry by far

And look up how much humans produce annually. Your volcanoes don't even emit 3% to the atmosphere.

Of course, i am le redbilled xD

97% of pol agrees. Global warming is a low energy hoax.

China.

>giving a shit about what working class plebes think
It's their mess when everyone who's not worthless genetic trash is on Elysium or Mars.

>climate does change

Shut the fuck up faget, no it doesn't

>humans have little to do with and are completely powerless to stop it as its a natural process.

Humans can do anything retard, we went to the moon already, you think we cant science up a new climate if we want?

It just costs too much and the globalists want it so fuck em

Those are all funded by Soros and just want to keep their grant money fool

Next please

>Computer models wrong 17 years running
>Thinking anyone has any definitive idea what's going on

>genetic fallacy

Gotcha! This is environmental science not biology retard

We can trust the god emperor

MAGA
A
G
A

>Yes goy, you're just burying your head in the sand. Give us increased control over your economies! Allow us to penalize manufacturers! We'll just send your jobs to China so that they can do the polluting instead! Huehuehuehuehuehue

You're purposefully missing the point. EVERY living thing produces co2. And its been that way since the dawn of time. We're warned of a point of no return, yet we know there have been periods when total atmospheric co2 was has been far greater than it is today. And these periods have occurred, and eventually receded without ANY anthropologic interference of any kind.

>believing in man-made climate change
>he doesnt think scientists are just as vile and ruthless as regular people
Scientists don't actually want their theories to be disproven you retard, if they are, then they lose funding
That's why the scientific community goes as far as to blacklist people that try to go against the common concensus
Don't think for a second that because a person is a scientist they'll throw aside all their decades of research when a rival theory is presented

This is incorrect, you're basically contradict yourself. Your telling me to look up the airport as proof that global climate change isn't real. But you are right, a single point does not imply the planet is changing, so why would I look up a single point. Globally, temperatures have been rising in the since 1950. Yes, They have been higher before. Yes, Carbon has been higher before. But what climate deniers fail to recognize are time scales. We have not seen a rate of change of climate this quickly in the last 650,000 years. NASA as the source on that. The one main variable between now and 100,000 years ago is industrialization and fossil fuels. Volcanoes only have a global effect for about 3 years. Sunspots cycle on the order of 11 years. The warming in the last 50 years is unequivocally the fault of humans and the release of carbon into the atmosphere.

but often there are clusters within datasets that should be analysed seperately. you want to pick up localised trends in data, that's part of the reason you collect it in the first place. how might a scientist deem that of say 1000 locations only 300 are significant and what might this mean? Well, you want to test for effects on the response (climate) and see what predictors (periods of time) seemed to affect the response (climate) the most. Then you can use this information to efficiently formulate arguments for what might cause the response (climate) to be changed.

I recently did a paper on genetics data where we had 2000 gene expressions of 62 people, some of whom had cancer. there is no way in that situiation that all 2000 genes effect whether someone has cancer, so you want to find localised groups of genes that do in order to find effective treatments right? I think in the end there were around 200 genes that we concluded would be interesting for further research, found by using classification algorithms and machine learning techniques, if youre interested

So much delicious salt.

.MUH GLOBAL WARMING DOOMSDAY PROPHECY DEATH CULT
Make another failed prediction, faggot. The world was supposed to end in 2010, go wait for the Hale-Bopp, you Bill Nye-watching faggot.