/sci/ - Science & Math

Before anyone claims the consensus isn't real please read in it's entirety
>https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
any criticisms should include citations and corrections with citations.

>>10751924
Consider that nearly all academics swing left. It’s more than 95% as all teachers and professors vote democrats. Can’t trust research produced by such an incredibly biased group.

>>10751965
This reality has a liberal bias, observations and research can't be trusted. Have faith in the party.

>>10751965
Time to throw your computer away. Some liberal probably lied about it being safe and you cant trust scientists.

>>10751996
it's actually pretty great, there are growing numbers of conservatives who don't trust the evil liberal doctors and are dying of preventable illnesses, natural selection at work it's wonderful.

>>10751924
Well, Its a very well established and understood field though. Studying the climate is not exactly new.

>>10751972
Wrong. Statement above is about academia, not reality. Ivy League academia is not reality. If academia were not liberal, we'd see acknowledgement of racial/gender differences. Instead they all claim "we're all equal." Liberal papers are contaminated.

>>10751965
What's the point of being here if you don't trust science?

>>10752007
>>10751996
Fucking this, we should start a meme that (((the internet))) is bad for your health or something and hopefully all the boomer conservasharts will fuck off

>>10752016
>science doesn't agree with what I want to believe so it's the scientists who are wrong!

>>10752036
It's my goal in 5G threads

>>10752040
Are you the hazmat poster?

>>10751996
>computer
>safe
Absolute state of global warming retards.

>>10752040
BASED.

>>10752036
To be fair, 90% of the Internet is cancerous. It would be beneficial for everyone is people used it less.

>>10752037
If scientists profess to their liberal ideology, then that's the cause of the issue.

>>10752046
The NSA is at this very moment logging every single action you did. They built a profile about you and they have you tagged as "REDPILLED" and therefore dangerous. The more time you spend on here the more of a threat you become and the higher the chances that you will be disappeared.

>>10752009
So were the Prophet Muhammad during the Islamic golden age

>>10752052
whoaaaa what if there's a reason the most intelligent, educated people tend to be liberal...

>>10751924
Wait... Do the Chinese/Russian/Brazilian researchers really agree? Are they really a part of these 97%..?

>>10752016
>moving the goal post, changing the subject for no reason, sophistry
Every
Fucking
Time

>>10752060
What are you suggesting? Cultural force like Marxist ideology? Its hilarious that China is trying hard to remove the marxist ideology yet the US is embracing marxist ideology openly.

>>10752072
>muh commies strawman
never gets old

>>10751924
>97% of accepted papers follow the status quo.
Woah dude. That's like, amazing and shit.

>>10752066
>when you thought Russia couldn't possibly get more based

https://bellona.org/news/arctic/2019-01-moscows-response-to-climate-change-bring-it-on

>>10752066
Of course they do. How could they not?

>>10752078
explains why the GOP denies climate change i guess.

>>10752053
Now that's a great liberal scientific argument.

>>10752112
Sounds like you're not really scared of the government then.
So what's all this pretense about?

>>10752016
>we'd see acknowledgement of racial/gender differences
You have no idea what you are talking about. It actually baffles me.
Human races COULD exist under some conditions and existed in the past.
They do not exist right now because humans tend to travel and mix.
What DOES exist is racial archetypes. People tend towards racial archetypes, yes. Higher or lower I.Q., musculature, etc...

>>10751924

>>10752219
>>10751933

>>10752229
The consensus is real because a poorly done study of poorly done studies says so. "Consensus" isn't even a scientific argument. Its a political argument. Pic related, chief promoter of the "consensus" meme. Seems to enjoy dressing like a nazi too.

>>10752233
>>10751933

>>10752069
He wasn't even doing that.
You, however, seem to be.

>>10752251
Do you not recognize the name on that "study"? It's the same guy. He literally authored a study to claim his first study is legit. How convenient.

>>10752260
>any criticisms should include citations and corrections with citations.
I realize ad hominems are your bread and butter on The_donald but this is /sci/ and we hold ourselves to a higher standard.

>>10752268
Are you sure you know what ad hominem is..?

>>10752275
adjective
adjective: ad hominem
1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

>>10752282
And making a study saying "my other study were not only correct, it's like totz correct", isn't a position he's taking..? Criticizing that isn't a personal attack

>>10752268
You provided the citation you dumb shit. Check the name. It's John Cook. The same guy from the 97% "study". He's also a fucking psychologist. Not a real scientist. If he was a skeptic with his shitty "credentials" and pulling stunts like this, you would be mocking him and telling him to go back to The_Donald. And he would deserve every bit of it. But he tells you what you want to hear so no standards required.

>>10752307
>he's a cartoonist he can't be right!
>He dressed up funny he can't be right!
If the any part of the study is incorrect address it directly with citations proving it's incorrect. Anything less is just you talking out of your ass and can be ignored.

>>10752316
>>10752282

>>10752330
Here is an ad hominem:
You are a fucking stupid brainlet.
It's also 100% correct.

>>10752321

Your argument is a disaster m8

>>10752337
your autistic screeching because you don't know how to react to things outside your T_D safespace is entertaining.

>>10752350
you on the other hand can't even provide one, just what I would expect from someone so gullible.

>>10752357
Now that's a ad hominem

>>10752364
You don't have an argument so such a fallacy does not apply. If you had an argument I would address it directly but you don't so I can point and laugh.

>>10752253
The argumentation was "academia is biased on racial/gender topic, therefore cannot be trusted on any subject". By that logic, any scientific consensus can be thrown away. No more General Relativity, shoo plate tectonics, microbiology be gone, they're all leftist scams.

>>10752371
Have you been paying attention to conservative circles lately? Antivaxxers, moon landing conspiracies, geocentrists, flat earthers, AGW deniers, young earth creationism, etc. It's all the result of the same logic.

>>10752378
Imagine if they actually turned out to be right one some of the areas. Wouldn't that suck? But that's impossible, right? Scientifically.

>>10752386
Well they have zero evidence, and only defend their beliefs through ignorance. So it's incredibly unlikely, but if you want to start writing your paper on why the earth is flat go ahead.

>>10752393
So you're saying there's a chance they're right? What are you, a nationalist??

>>10752398
Hey if the evidence is good enough you can prove anything. Kind of the hard part isn't it though?

>>10752402
Not anything, only reality.

>>10752402
Blasphemy! Science has proved the TRUTH. Go join your /pol/ friends

>>10752413
Kind of implied by the whole requirement of evidence.

>>10752402
>evidence is good enough
Or convenient enough, especially if there is a 97% scientific consensus and very little arguing against it mostly due to peer pressure (not peer review)

>>10752434
mostly due to peer pressure (not peer review)
could you provide evidence for this statement?

>>10752378
>It's all the result of the same logic
i.e. brainlets lashing out at smart people out of jealousy/fear

>>10752440
Ofc not, how would i get funding/resources for such a project?

>>10752449
The Heartland institute is giving out million dollar grants. The Koch brothers too.

>>10752457
So where are all the studies?

>>10752465
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon

>>10752219
>what is ad hominem

>>10751924
>When was the last time the scientific community had this high consensus on a developing area?
I think it was back when stomach ulcer was considered the result of acid imbalance. It was not:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall et al
>In 1983 they submitted their findings so far to the Gastroenterological Society of Australia, but the reviewers turned their paper down, rating it in the bottom 10% of those they received in 1983.[12]

One Nobel Prize later, consensus was different.

Leo Esaki is another case of a lone scientist demonstrating the majority was wrong and got a Nobel Prize (Physics) for it.

Back in the day when I was a student we were read the riot act on excessive consensus. And Leo Esaki was given as an example. I guess most real scientists know these stories.

>>10751933
>https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
I guess it is cheating to actually read the thing.

>The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus.

So let us chop down these numbers. So 4019 / 11944 took a position. That is 34 %. And then, mysteriously, one selects N=2412, which is just 20 %. And from this again he extract 97 %. That is nothing short of outrageous cherry picking. Generously we get 97 % of 34 % which is 33%.

I have never seen numbers massaged this hard before.

>>10752489
Speculation at its worst. You do know what random sampling is, right? Scientists run markov simulations to determine the necessary sample size to accurately represent the mean, that's why N=2412.

>>10752489
>So let us chop down these numbers. So 4019 / 11944 took a position. That is 34 %

>Equating no-position papers with rejection or an uncertain position on AGW is inconsistent with the expectation of decreasing reference to a consensual position as that consensus strengthens (Oreskes 2007, Shwed and Bearman 2010). Powell (2015) shows that applying Tol's method to the established paradigm of plate tectonics would lead Tol to reject the scientific consensus in that field because nearly all current papers would be classified as taking 'no position'.

>And then, mysteriously, one selects N=2412, which is just 20 %
Not everyone responded very simple.
Back to the drawing board bucko

>>10752501
>>10752516
So you haven't considered the possibility that not taking a position is a conscious decision? In fact it is noteworthy in itself that less than half are willing to take a position. And then the conclusion blares out that 97 % are in agreement.

It is far less dishonest to say that 97% of the 34% that decided to take a position, believe in global warming.

>>10751924
Any actually natural scientific study with actual reproducible experiment has 100% concensus. You can find hundreds of actual science papers like that produced every year in chemistry and physics. 97% concensus is gender studies tier.

>>10752564
>Equating no-position papers with rejection or an uncertain position on AGW is inconsistent with the expectation of decreasing reference to a consensual position as that consensus strengthens (Oreskes 2007, Shwed and Bearman 2010). Powell (2015) shows that applying Tol's method to the established paradigm of plate tectonics would lead Tol to reject the scientific consensus in that field because nearly all current papers would be classified as taking 'no position'.
this combined with the fact that many climatology papers don't directly relate to AGW it's no surprise they don't explicitly state a position

>>10752576
PHYSIC-SKEKS BTFO

>>10751965
Imagine being so fucking dumb you cant conceive of someone doing their fucking job regardless of politics. Stop binge watching fox news 24/7 and get some perspective.

>>10752386
>if they were right
What if they were? Do you think everyone with reasonable positions would prostrate themselves crying about how they were owned?
>wouldnt that suck
No?

>>10752434
>peer pressure
Jesus christ, yeah man all those scientist are in the schoolyard just getting bullied you know? Look into getting a vasectomy.

>>10752655
It's a real issue, you have to understand academia is an institution that is prestige motivated. Just like middle school. https://www.google.com/search?q=bullying+and+power+plays+in+academia

>>10752695
>It's a real issue
No its not. Not to the extent that anyone is knowingly publishing factually and demonstrably incorrect data.
> you have to understand academia is an institution that is prestige motivated
Holy shit you cant be real. Prestige is not a large motivator the in hard sciences, people who care about prestige go to law or medical school. A theory having a very large consensus backing it is not evidence of its weakness, no one is running around saying GR is fake because 99.99999% of physicists think its real.

>>10752716
Do you ever have any counter-arguments or are you going through your entire life spewing retarded bullshit to everyone and everything? Or are you trolling?

>>10752636
Lol. You are the one who is dumb. It is known that scientists that try to go against the leftist orthodoxy are immediately banned

>>10751924
This happens when shill bots like you spam our threads. Skeptical Chaos Theorist here, ready to debunk your bunk. Ask me anything!

>>10752742
citation needed

>>10752726
>the science doesn't agree with my ideology
>it's the science that is wrong!!!!

>>10752802
You must be 18 or older to post here. Remember kids, your crush will kiss you at midnight if you put "sage" in the options field!

>>10752321
>my source (someone who is neither a climatologist nor a scientist) should be believed over all of you, since you are not climatologists or scientists
yikes

>>10751924
the consensus is on humans emitting a known greenhouse gas (Co2) into the atmosphere.
the consensus is not that our contribution to climate change is in any way significant, let alone catastrophic.

>>10751924
Reminder that science is a jewish liberal conspiracy to undermine gods free kingdom of America

>>10752822
Who are you quoting?

>>10752822
>>10752282

>>10752966
>i can use ad hominem but you can't because you're wrong

>>10752582
>we can know what is true by the number of people who believe it
Why aren't you catholic then?

>>10752982
It’s not ad hominem because mutts aren’t human. Great question.

>>10752830
The actual criteria of OP
1. Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming
2. Explicitly states humans are causing global warming
3. Implies humans are causing global warming.
4a. Does not address or mention the cause of global warming
4b. Expresses position that human's role on recent global warming is uncertain/undefined
5. Implies humans have had a minimal impact on global warming without saying so explicitly
6. Explicitly minimizes or rejects that humans are causing global warming
7. Explicitly states that humans are causing less than half of global warming

>>10752986
Expert consensus, it's very valuable it's why I drive a car, fly on a plane don't smoke cigarettes, inhale asbestos or lick lead paint. If you can demonstrate empirical evidence that the experts are incorrect then do so. If you're ignorant on the topic your opinion is meaningless and can be ignored by any rational person.

>>10752982
You've never had anything even approaching an argument so I can just call you a retard as much as I want.

>>10753006
>I don’t have an argument but neither do you so you’re a retard

>>10753010
my argument is right here
>>10751933
Your "argument" is right here
>>10752822
Which is without a doubt an ad hominem making it an attack not an argument. Which means I can ignore it and call you a retard.
Were you able to keep up with that sport?

>>10753010
My argument is right here >>10751933
Your argument is here>>10752822
Which is clearly an ad hominem which means it's not an argument and I can call you a retard as much as I want.

>>10753052
That’s not your argument, that’s some dude’s argument.

>>10753081
My argument is that I agree with the scientific consensus as quantified by cook et al 2016

>>10753095
Ok tubby

>>10753112
still struggling with this whole argument concept eh?

>>10753138
Pretty rich coming from someone whose “argument” is something he copy+pasted without even reading it

>>10753160
>all this projection

>>10753211
Cope

>>10753095
But 97% is not a concensus especially considering that another anon ITT who actually read the whole thing (unlike climate bullshitters who are just hysterical like teenage girls on periods) pointed out majority of scientists don't take clear stance. And as said 97% "consensus" is still gender studies tier, in natural sciences something either is true or is not, even that vastly exaggarated 97% signals clearly that this is not real natural science at all.

>>10753427
I'll accept your argument if you can provide similar studies examining scientific consensus on other topics in similar ways, I want comparable comparisons not one anon talking out of his ass. You want to know why it's not 100%? Because the study included papers by charlatans like Willie Soon, Monkton and Mörner. In 3% of any group you can find shills and schizos. The fact that you're willing to discount the vast expert consensus based entirely on evidence based purely on your own feelings is utterly idiotic.

>>10753251
>YOU DIDN'T ACTUALLY READ THAT SHORT PAPER
>Actually I did
>NO YOU DIDN'T
Am I talking to a child?

>>10753525
i know you are but what am i

>>10752016
Except they don't have papers and concensus claiming that races and genders are equal because they know that they're scientifically wrong about that.
They DO have papers and concensus for human caused climate change, because unlike their SJW tranny faggotry, they're actually right about environmental stuff.

>>10753530
I've had more intelligent responses from a 5 year old

>>10753537
ya boiling

>>10751965
This kind of 'logic' is why we can't have nice things.

>>10753519
Of course you want, because you are dumb climate cultist, so you don't understand that experiments in actual natural sciences are meant to be reproducible, therefore any experiment either has 100% confidence or 0% confidence, no inbetweens. Climate change is at its root chemistry and physics, but for some odd reason instead of delivering hard undisputable results in controlled experiments that anyone is free to attempt to disprove, climatologists seem strangely happy to make careers out of something else. It's disgusting and deceptive.

>>10754839
What the fuck are you even talking about you complete fucking imbecile.
Literally every single thing you said is wrong.
Just because you are too stupid to understand a certain science, doesn't mean that the science is wrong.

>>10754846
Cool counter-arguments.

>>10754857
You are not as smart as you think you are. Nobody is fooled by all these smoke and mirrors posts of yours. The fact that you engage in these bad faith tactics is already testament enough to how much you care about intellectual honesty.
You can claim anything you like on the Internet. You can make blatant lies. But that doesn't mean anything. Everyone can lie on the Internet. It's quite another matter in real life.
Climate science is not conducted on the Internet. They actually collect data and publish papers. It is all out in the open and entirely transparent.
You are free to publish your argument in a journal and win your Noble Prize and your billion dollars from Exxon and Royal Dutch Shell for conclusively disproving climate science.

>>10754874
Cool speech but what about simply addressing points I raised instead of that constant stream of liquid hot bullshit?

>>10751924
To get this consensus, the author of the consensus study had to remove 99% of non-agreeing scientists from his sample
>The Truth About Climate Change
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1309.0069

>>10754902
Why are you linking vixra? Browsing around it looks like a bunch of nonsense, including a guy who has a 2 page proof of Goldbach's conjecture ...

>>10754898
You didn't raise any points worth addressing. You put forward some lies and now you are pretending that you don't know that you are lying. There is no grand arbitrator of truth who is going to step in and dictate who of us is right so you can keep lying. It is up to the third party user to decide who is lying and who is telling the truth. To to this, they can consult the relevant literature and come up with their own conclusion. The science is pretty black and white on this issue so there is really no confusion to had.
There's really no point in continuing this conversation with somebody who thinks he is some smart ass troll.

I just want to point out that in your low-effort trolling, you are insulting the intelligence of everyone who browses /sci/.

>>10754917
It's literally a nutjob version of arxiv created because the nutjobs ramblings were rejected from the arxiv.

>>10753001
Expert consensus is literally the lowest form of scientific evidence.

Randomized controlled trials or bust

>>10754924
Are you done with your empty speeches that attempt to appeal to audience while dodging questions? If yes, you should finally address the points I raised. If not, give another speech, I'm saving these as pasta.

>>10754937
This. Actual science doesn't need consensus, it's not up to vote but experiment and publishing results, then re-experiments and verification of results. Not this crazed drivel.

>>10754947
Stop samefagging retard. Your attempts at trolling are pathetically transparent.

>>10752036
>we should start a meme that (((the internet))) is bad for your health or something and hopefully all the boomer conservasharts will fuck off
This would more likely end with them voting in people that regulate the internet so that whatever """health risks"""" there are can get reduced
Don't give their voting base any more reason to swing the way they do, that's why we're in this mess in the first place.

>>10754942
>>10754898
>>10754857
>>10754839
Literal flat earther tier arguments

>>10752695
Correct. Add to that the problem of academic/intellectual inbreeding and you get closer to seeing to rot in full bloom.

In addition if you are a PhD student you depend on your supervisor to get to the viva. Failing to agree will simply kill your career.

>>10753001
>Expert consensus, it's very valuable it's why I drive a car, fly on a plane
Read >>10752474

>>10751924
there's a similar consensus on the holocaust. it should make you think.

>>10755667
He had evidence and it was accepted after demonstrating his proof, why can't AGW deniers do the same?

>>10755668
That both exist? Or you have brain damage?

>>10755668
Back to /pol/

>>10752371
>By that logic, any scientific consensus can be thrown away.
If consensus is enforced by politics and NSA black mails, it should be thrown away.

How to do science according to a nutjob (climate change denier):
1. don't trust textbooks cause you never know, you cannot trust the authors
2. don't go to university, completely useless, cause of course you cannot trust the lecturers
3. start from nothing and think
4. figure out the first principles of every field of science and derive the rest from there
5. then replicate every single paper on the planet on your own
Then you can finally be sure that you did science correctly.

Btw:
A. You cannot use any technology because you cannot trust that it was not compromised. So that means you have to build all the equipment yourself, including your computer.
B. You cannot trust your own mind, because how do you know that you haven't been mind hacked using some secret government technology to make you think that you aren't actually mind hacked even though you are?

Good luck with that.

P.S. You have no reason to believe that tinfoil works to shield your brain from mind hacking tools.

>>10755715
That's just solipsism you retard, the idea that nothing at all is certain to exist/be true but your own mind.
It's a philosophical idea but useless in practice.

>>10755722
Political censorship in science is observable and obvious though.

>>10755734
You can claim whatever you like. Nobody is going to come to you to determine what reality is.
Enjoy your parallel reality, retard.

>>10755740
You argue with an obvious fact.

>>10754902
Whoa!

If I had done that I would never have gotten my PhD and my supervisor would have murderized me for massive, shameless fraud! And this flies OK with warmers? Unbelievable!

>>10756095
> I would never have gotten my PhD
PragerU isn't a university

>>10756224
>PragerU
That is a burger thing, right?

t.European

>>10754947
>experiment and publishing results, then re-experiments and verification of results.
This is called consensus.

>>10752742
Youre just dunning kreuger to a t arent you? You literally cant conceive of someone not giving a shit about politics.

>>10754839
>therefore any experiment either has 100% confidence or 0% confidence, no inbetweens.
Holy shit is this real?

>>10752726
The counter argument is that scientists arent 14 so saying its prestige based like middle school is such a poor analogy its meaningless. Scientists care about their work and being published/cited. No amount of networking lets you achieve those goals if your work is garbage or factually incorrect. This isnt psychology. No matter how much you want it to be true there is no grand conspiracy, academia is far too competitive to allow it exist.