/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10389882
when you're a fraud and a pseud

>literal 100 year economic extrapolations

hm based peterson

>>10389882
Weird how he is only "skeptical" of stuff conservatives don't like.

Hey guys I know we have consistently been incorrect with some of our predictions, and I know we have been predicting the end if the world for the past few decades, but this time we 100% mean it and you had better listen to us because the world is going to end unless you do exactly what we say haha isn't science so cool I effing love science! Except for the Crick guy, wow have to weed out the bad apples huh? Anyway f*ck Drumpf

>>10389884
>models used to predict climate change
>economic extrapolations

>>10389896
Hi Jordan

>>10389896
>Hey guys I know we have consistently been incorrect with some of our predictions
Which ones?

>and I know we have been predicting the end if the world for the past few decades
Who?

>>10389901
climate change is directly proprtional to economic stimulation in china and india, and those countries tend to output more carbon every year. Carbon emmisions are generally falling in the west. economies are always changing, you cant just extrapolate with a linear function or capture some derivative

>>10389908
It's gonna be an ice age!! Oh nevermind

There's gonna be no snow on Kilamengaro in ten years!! Oh never mind

The ice caps will be completely melted by 2020!!! Oh wait nevermind

The planet is gonna burn up!! Oh nevermind global warming was not true so it's called climate change now sweaty

I understand that a large part of science is making models, comparing them to experimental data, and then revising and change what you were wrong on. That's fine. What isn't ok is at every point along the way insist that you're near infallible and we have to jump every time you (incorrectly) tell us the world is ending.

>>10389917
Climate models work by starting with a proposed emissions scenario, called an RPC. So the climate models don't extrapolate anything about the economy, they say if we emit this amount then the temperature will look like this.

>>10389932
Who said these things? We're they scientists or just random people? Was there a consensus that supported them and then changed or are these just fringe claims? I doubt you've even checked that these claims were even made, yet you're trying to pass them off as if they were on the same level as the current consensus. Sort yourself out mate.

Gentle reminder that academia is full of hacks. Remember, religion is evil and you should question everything! Except for climate change, no anyone who disagrees with us on that is an idiot and we'll make sure you get no funding to try and validate you claims. Then when the field is saturated by only our perspective we'll happily claim that the science is settled! How fun.

Why do we even bother with these people. These are the same people that pressure journals into rejecting anti-trans papers because it went against the narrative. These are the same people that strip Watson of all of his titles because he said some mean things (that happened to be true but let's not worry about that). The academic world is a joke, and you all only have yourselves to blame for why people don't trust you.

Gentle reminder that the poster above is a hack who has no idea what he's talking about.

>>10389935
hahahahah maybe like 5% of the literature

dont pretend the vast majority of models in papers arent suggesting more precise economic calculations

>>10389963
>>>/pol/

>>10389978
I don't know which models you're referring to but the use of RPCs is standard practice, including in the IPCC's models which are the most widely used. The only one pretending here is you.

>>10389961
he is mainly quoting the mainstream documentaries that normies know/hear about
al gore claimed many times (im sure with SOME kind of data) that there would be no snow on Kilimanjaro, but i dont know the details on that
i believe the michael moore documentary was the one saying ice caps would be melted by 2020, and im sure others as ive heard it before
again i do not know the details im just telling you this is what a normie would have heard from a documentary or a news segment or something like that
i think this is a huge part of the problem, these are the models or 'consensus' that normies hear about and they end up being wrong, so people that somehow think climate change is a liberal thing start to disagree with it or not 'believe' in it

>>10390020
Its not that conservatives necessarily dont believe in it (yeah you find examples of joe shmo saying its a myth made up by the illurminarti) but if you even have an ounce of doubt about the consequences of such change, the severity, or that theres anything wr can do to stop it youre a climate denier whos an absolute dolt, and nothing you say can exonerate your reputation in society. Youre a right wing kook whi wears tin foil hats and deserves to get shat upon.

>>10390020
This is just strawmanning by exaggerating fringe claims by nonscientists and implying that they're equivalent to the consensus. He knows exactly what he's doing.

>>10390056
>conflate Al Gore with climate scientists
>complain when you get called out for it
>I'm just asking questions hurr durr

>>10390056
>>10390058
i dont disagree with either of you, i was just answering the guy who asked
>who made these claims?
its an idiotic argument but those people that make them feel justified in it because they are retards

>>10389889
Not as strange as him having the soul of a liberal, but the arguments and beliefs of a conservative. He's transpolitical I guess.

>>10389882

Here's is Petersons secret:

Deep down he's a Canadian Monarchist.

He was most likely monarchist-pilled by his family/friends as a very young child and it became the scaffolding of his personal worldview. He probably under so many layers of self-deception and abstractions that he isn't even conscious of it. Harping on about Christianitys' valut to western civilization but never actually worshiping Jesus, his pre-occupation with absolute rulers like Stalin and Hitler but not cosigning any stereotypical fascist views. His love of sadboi Russians authors living in the time when Russia lost the 1000 year old idea that the tsar is the absolute leader AND religious sovereign of the nation; his vague disdain of republican ideals... all of his core beliefs align with absolute monarchism.

>>10389882
He's a pseudo-intellectual, who's gathered a large cult of braindead followers only because he happened to voice his opinion on a bill in public. "He stood up against the SJW's guys!" He's the stupid persons smart person. He's got expertise in clinical psychiatry, sure, but then he starts talking about climate change and everything he says is complete bullshit. He's real good at using all those fancy, large words which makes his followers think he's 200iq.

>>10389979
>Anyone who disagrees with me is pol because I can't possibly accept being wrong

>>10389882
>countless climate models had completely inaccurate predictions
>this model is right i swear
>if you don't understand how my model works in the smallest detail, you have to be intellectually dishonest

:DDDDDDDD

Dear /pol/

https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

>make models
>assign incorrect value to the role of CO2 in the greenhouse effect
>pretend clouds have the opposite effect to what they do in real life
>make predictions based on model
>be dead wrong
>ask 100 other teams about their models
>they're all dead wrong too
>take 101 bad models
>add them together
>take the average
>"settled science"

All this while average global temperature hasn't moved for 20 years, according to satellite data.

>>10389963
Thank you. Dogmatism is a disease that preys on skepticism. It's ironic that those who preach the most often about skepticism and open-mindedness are those who are most dogmatic in their thinking ---like wolves in sheep's clothing.

>>10390377
>a cluttered site of shit like "97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming"
very tone deaf. this is a PR problem, it doesn't convince anyone, it's just sampling your own farts.

anyway, while i wholly believe in anthropomorphic influence on the atmosphere and therefore, by extension, the climate (we pretty much live in a closed system for fuck's sake), the quality of measurements is forever increasing. there are more and better monitoring stations in 2019 versus 1900. how is this compensated for in the "average global temperature" graphs that everyone loves to post? this is one of the things that makes me doubt the magnitude of the issue

>>10389882
Given how hard this triggered you, you're probably skeptical of findings on race and IQ differences, which means you're just as full of shit as he is.

>>10390529
>implying IQ isn't pseudo-science

>>10389882
when you've got a massive following hanging on your lip
he's fucking full of himself

>>10390392

>All this while average global temperature hasn't moved for 20 years, according to satellite data.
Pic related is satellite data, which shows rapid warming in the last 20 years. Isn't it convenient that 20 years ago there was a large El Nino spike, which would be the perfect place to cherrypick as your starting point if you wanted to skew the trend to hide warming? Unfortunately, this trick no longer works as too much time has passed with rapid warming. Sad.

>assign incorrect value to the role of CO2 in the greenhouse effect
>pretend clouds have the opposite effect to what they do in real life
>make predictions based on model
>be dead wrong
>ask 100 other teams about their models
>they're all dead wrong too
>take 101 bad models
>add them together
>take the average
thingsthatneverhappened.jpg

>>10390371
>>countless climate models had completely inaccurate predictions
Can you give any examples? Or a source that flubs countless models are wrong?

(no denier has ever answered this question, and I must have asked it hundreds of times over the years since they keep repeating this same line)

>>10390362
>>>/pol/

>>10390421
Did you try looking for the answer? Because I found it in a few seconds of googling.

>>10390756
/reddit/

>>10390760
See >>10389979

Arrogance of the right-wing personified.
They have a grand unified theory of reality. They know exactly how everything works and they have all the answers and the answers are always very simple and they boil down to making the rich richer and the poor poorer.

>>10390764
Exactly, conservatism is religion, science, and politics rolled into one easily digestible package for people who can't think for themselves.

>>10390759
>Did you try looking for the answer?

You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into, so no.

>>10390764
>>10390770
based and big brained

>>10389961
look at any science textbook given out in the past 70 years

>>10390764
>>10389882
>>10390715
>>10390744

t. reddit i fucking love science "scientists" who love to sniff farts and pretend they know shit but really they argue at a television screen about republican/democrats and live in closed political ideologies at sub 105 IQs

>>10391063
Show me one.

>>10389932
>i have no idea what extrapolations are or error anaysis
Wow what a great intellectual amongst us. Please, continue to convince us how an entire community of scientists who have dedicated their lives to a subject of study are all liers, cranks and just totally against based Trump!! Dont forget to link to rambling youtube videos, sponsored oil sites and QAnon's latest on satanic pedopholia rings.

>>10390362
>>>/pol/

>>10389883
Only fraud are those shilling the global warming hoax

>>10389889
Liberals appeal to emotions why conservatives appeal to reason.

>>10389882
Every climate model has been wrong.

>>10389882
he uses the nirvana fallacy of “well here are some legitimate problems on the climate change side” to then say we shouldn’t do anything about it

>>10391182
Climate change alarmists are the biggest conspiracy tards out there.

>>10390770
>>10390764
That’s comical since the most successful scientists and business leaders are mostly conservatives.

The left believes in theory va practicality.

>>10391861
>conservative making a sweeping generalization
thanks for proving his point

>>10391862
Your point was just that.

>>10391855
Why should when there is no proof we could even change it?

>>10390088
>Not as strange as him having the soul of a liberal, but the arguments and beliefs of a conservative. He's transpolitical I guess.
What did you mean by this, based schizoposter?

>>10389882
>How can you be skeptical of something you can't even comprehend?
atheists btfo

>>10390715
In my experience there is a direct correlation between the ugliness of a slojak and the butthurtness of its poster.

>>10390744
>unironically fitting a MSE intercept line into that graph
You are an imbecile, along with most "climate scientists", who use inaccurate statistical methods due to their own inability to learn advanced concepts in statistics (time series analysis, multiple variable times series analysis etc.).

>>10392193
>anecdotal claims

>>10389882
I think a big problem with climate models are the number of factors that can effect the climate. God knows how they account for random solar flares let alone all the random wind currents and other stuff.

>>10391850
Ah yes, denying scientific facts because you are afraid of what they imply is very reasonable.

>>10391853
Every model has been wrong.

>>10391878
>no proof reducing our emissions would reduce warming even though it's fundamental physics and directly observed
Yup totally the party of reason and not emotion.

>>10392205
Please explain what advanced statistical techniques you used to determine that the temperature hasn't moved for 20 years.

>>10392235
Solar flares and wind currents are not dominant factors in the long term global temperature.

>>10389882
Do you think Peterson would want to argue about the verity of psychoanalysis with a climatologist?

>>10389882

Reminder that GCC is an ad hoc theory playing tag with Karl Popper every time it's btfo by reality.

>>10392321
Skepticism and denial do not mean the same thing sir.

>>10389963
So get a degree and come up with an alternate explanation for the warming trend. Else you are "questioning" simply as a red herring to support your own biases.

>>10392500
Yes, which is why climate deniers can't be called skeptics.

>>10392497
When has it "been BTFO by reality?"

>>10392510

Literally anytime it tries to make a long-term prediction.

>>10392527
Name one time.

>>10392527
Literally false.

>>10391850
fuck the police

>>10392559
i hate you

>>10391875
>conservatives tend towards simplistic views
>conservative npc replies with sweeping generalization
>durr ur point was that libtards arent practical
what are you even saying? rich people tend to be conservative because that's the side of anti-regulation dumbass. how do you think they got rich in the first place?

>>10389882
JP on it
>we're not so sure why it's happening, based on ecology and economy related books I read
Fucking stupid opinion. If we only acted when we knew absolutely everything we wouldn't make any decision ever. We have to act on the evidence we have until otherwise.
>it's very political so a lot of questionable data out there
Absolutely. But we're talking about a worldwide consensus, not just specific politically charged regions that can't entertain criticism.
>we aren't tackling it effectively and the ideology involved is problematic
Absolutely true.

So yes, JP is part brainlet.

>>10391072
>that image
>calling anyone else reddit

>>10391850
This is so tiring to read all the time. Do you even comprehend where the term "conservative" originates from? Conservatives are for conserving - that nothing progresses.

>>10390759

>relying on 18th century thermometers

how about this pic realted?

>>10392775
That graph is not derived from the climate chart of Christian Dietrich Schonwiese, he never made one, it's an extrapolation of his work on the Holocene period, 60 year old studies and some other random studies, and makes extreme assumptions based on the whims of the author.
It is quite literally made by an intelligent yet batshit insane person, a dangerous combination, and pretty fucking far from how you actually conduct scientific reviews of subjects.
https://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/2011/10/05/teil-8-dynamisches-sonnensystem-die-tatsaechlichen-hintergruende-des-klimawandels/

Here's the actual fucking data it claims to be based on which this madman converted to fit his agenda. Notice the slight changes of the Y-axis from -1 to 1.5 to 10 - 17. A minor modification.

>>10392771
This one is great.
Cliff Harris is a chemtrail conspiracy nut with no actual qualifications and Randy Mann is a weatherman meteorologist with a bachelor and quite literally pulls the supporting data out of his ass where he has stored it for 30 years after a non-existing Illinois Weather Science Foundation he was apparently part of in the 1970s shut down.
Published of course on their own website.

>>10389975
cope

>>10389896
>go to Yellowstone national park
>see petrified red wood trees from a time when co2 and temperature were high enough for them to survive all the way in Montana
hmmmmmm

>>10393417
>>>/pol/

>>10390772
Actually you some times can. I was reasoned out of a religious belief I was simply taught as a young child.

>>10389882
>How can you be skeptical of something you can't even comprehend?

2019
Irony posting is still going strong.

>>10390744
>Oh boy if I can just disprove one statement while ignoring the bigger picture the retards will generalize it and ignore all other arguments yeeha.

>>10391182
Your post is only valuable as it demonstrates a novel logical fallacy, ala, people worked hard on this so it must be correct uwu.

I know that you think using the word science makes you smart, but you are retar

>>10389882
He's a self help guru. It's his job to promote himself in the media. Taking controversial and wrong position that grab attention are a great way to do that.

>>10393317
Is this not to the same effect? It basically paints the picture that recent climate change is not so drastic as compared to pre-industrial eras?

>DA LEFT
>DA RIGHT
So tiresome. Off yourselves.

>>10389882
He’s just some reactionary dumbass. Who cares what he thinks

>>10394203
How reactionary of you to say.

>>10391861
>successful scientists are mostly conservatives

wrong.

>>10394114
No it's because scientists actually get results and do things that make real changes and you idiots are just a vocal minority who wont shut up and listen to the people who actually know their shit.

>>10394140
There's an arrow on the graph that tells you where 2004 was, and it's already higher than the entire graph.

>>10389882
He keeps parroting Jung or other psychologists. Is this man incapable of coming up with his own ideas?

>>10394700
he's capable of shilling for SSRIs non-stop

>>10394111
Claims are not arguments. You could have taken this post to show that anything you claimed is true, but you didn't because it's a bunch of bullshit.

>>10389882
>>10380021
The guy who drew the long straw at shareblue this morning?

>>10389896
i know this isn't serious but regardless the world isn't going to end from climate change anyways, I don't really understand why so many extremists think just because humans may mostly die out that means the world ends.

If you're a completely irresponsible manchild retard, Peterson is a gateway figure to learning something actually true and useful but you need to recognize his inconsistencies and inadequacies quickly as their usefulness is short lived.

Someone on /pol/ said:

>he's controlled opposition, meant to corral the more inquisitive goyims.

>>10394700
Jung was a kabbalist just like peterson. once you understand kabbalah you will understand his motives, limitations and (limited) insights imo

The central point is that predictions are orders of magnitude more difficult than observations. What scientists have done is observe that the climate is changing. Not exactly why, but that it is. Ok, that is simple enough. Now, building a model that can take into account a multitude of complex factors and variables and spit out of a real projection for the next 50 years? Good luck. People can't even build accurate sports betting models, or get the weather up to 10 days out.

Scientists also have the benefit of non-falsifiability. They don't have to prove their model is accurate. They just put it together and push their results out and you're expected to accept that as gospel because they have the title and the authority. Nevermind the politics behind what much of academia does.

You want to cripple your economy and industry because a bunch of academic ideologues scrapped together some half-baked model that says the Earth is going to end in 50 years if we don't radically cater to their economic aspirations, go ahead.

>>10389882
>a psychologist pseud opining on climate science

>>10389882
>talks about IQ more than anything
>asked what his IQ is
>hurr idk it's less than before cause i'm old
>i think it's north of 150

>>10395595
>What scientists have done is observe that the climate is changing. Not exactly why, but that it is.
Wrong, scientists are able to see where heat in the atmosphere is coming from via radiative spectroscopy. So we can directly observe that CO2 is causing the warming.

>Now, building a model that can take into account a multitude of complex factors and variables and spit out of a real projection for the next 50 years? Good luck. People can't even build accurate sports betting models, or get the weather up to 10 days out.
This has already been done. See >>10392558

>Scientists also have the benefit of non-falsifiability. They don't have to prove their model is accurate.
Of course they do.

>They just put it together and push their results out and you're expected to accept that as gospel because they have the title and the authority.
You're ignoring the decades of research, fundamental physics and chemistry that underpin these models. You don't belong on the science board.

>You want to cripple your economy and industry because a bunch of academic ideologues scrapped together some half-baked model that says the Earth is going to end in 50 years if we don't radically cater to their economic aspirations, go ahead.
You have it completely backwards. Ignoring global warming is what's going to cripple the economy. You want to do this and ignore the advice of scientists and economists because... it would be inconvenient for your political ideology? Pathetic.

>>10389882
The same can be said for faggots who arent skeptical of them and eat leftist uni "studies" like theyre the word of God.
Eat shit fags, none of you weakminded fools can comprehend it either, were all just along for the ride.
Better to just shut the fuck up and ride it out than act lime youre some smarty pants faggot for quoting flawed experiments like they are law.

>>10391850
Wrong. Most people (in both camps) appeal to emotion and ideology. Just look at conservative young earth creationists talk about evolution if you want to see an embarrassing display of Dunning Kruger powered anti-reason arguments.

>>10391063
Why do you post random lies?

>>10389963
That argument can be used to attack critics of any sort of science denying lunacy like young earth creationism and flat earth theory. The reason people get annoyed is cause you're a bunch of Dunning Kruger retards who make laughable arguments about something you don't even have a basic, intro level understanding of.

>>10392771
>posts graph by some conspiracy theory blogger who's past predictions were BTFO

>>10390127
I agree, I don't mind him talking about psychiatry related issues, but as soon as he starts moving out of his lane its an issue. The fuck does psychologists know about actual science?