/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10851692
>couldn't convince anyone in the global warming thread
>has to make his anal devastation public

>>10851694

>>10851701

>>10851703

>>10851705

>>10851709
And for further reading, please refer to this website which has intermediate and basic breakdowns of the science and sources that show beyond a shadow of a doubt that global climate change caused by human CO2 emissions is definitely happening

>>10851692
Like the consensus that we should only use metric units as length?

>>10851692
You probably should trust scientific consensus sometimes, anon, especially if you know little about the topic at hand. Feeling forever free to go against scientific consensus is a breeding ground for the Dunning-Kruger effect. Also, some people that shit on consensus really are more oppositional to the consensus than free from it, thus their opinion is still defined by it.

>>10851692
The collective infinitesimals of the majority are the easiest epsilons for any random population member to support with a minima of validation.

T/F?

大多數的集體無窮小是任何隨機人口成員支持最小外部驗證的最簡單的論據。

>>10851692
>axiomatic presuppositions of the layman are inherently false
Its through dumb shit like this you justify men being women

>>10851764
based point but the axiomatic presuppositions of the layman not being inherently false does not mean they're inherently true either, nor especially valuable or likely to be accurate

>>10851694
>>10851701
>>10851703
>>10851705
>>10851709
This thread has nothing to do with global warming, you paid shill.

>>10851694
not having idea without thinking about anus makes you faggot

>>10851703
>wider, but thinner
Now how do I explain that to the misses?

>>10851795
"homosexual"

faggot is nothing bad, just abuse of liguistic emptyness is what made it unsuitable to describe something useful.

>>10851692
The scientific consensus has empirical evidence for their beliefs. So this fallacy doesn't apply here.

>>10851735
Schizoposting should result in a ban.

>>10851801
They do until they don't.

>>10851692
It wouldn't be so bad if those who were against the idea did it scientifically, but the sad truth is most are just godtards who think the world is perfect and made just for them so they *can't* possibly break it.

>>10851801
>empirical evidence
>empirical evidence are made up-ad hoc computer simulations
>simulations are failing since the 80s
>simulations doesn't fit with geological records
>governments are shilling 24/7 globalwarming bullshit while increasing restrictions on people's cars
>trusting governments
nigga we don't even have an unified analytical model for climate, and yet you presents the results of those shitty simulations as "evidence" because
>muh consensus

>>10851816
Should we strive for more efficient technology: Yes
Should we try to be less wasteful: Yes
Should you shut the fuck up: Yes

>>10851818
The activists are not asking us to be more efficient and less wasteful, they're asking us to hobble the industries that underlie every aspect of modern life and overhaul society into some vaguely defined socialist utopia.

>>10851837
are you denying that carbon concentration in the atmosphere is increasing?

>>10851816
>analytical model for climate
Literally impossible

A journalist once asked Einstein to comment on an article titled "100 scientists speak out against Einstein's theory".

Einstein replied, "100? If I were truly wrong it should only take 1"

>>10851692
A scientific consensus is a consensus of published scientific evidence, not of people's beliefs.

>>10851818
This is /sci/. fuck off with your "shoulds".
I will strive for whatever I want, not for the Zeigest your Eco-fanatics movement wants to impose.

I'm waiting for the real evidence not your bullshit "consensus"

>>10851694
We had ways to measure the CO2 concentration that long ago? All this really says is that is our method of estimating CO2 for long ago underperforms.

>>10851856
yes we do, it's called air bubbles trapped in the ice you fucking faggot.
you're clearly underage and lack basic scientific knowledge, therefore your opinion doesn't matter in a scientific debate.

>>10851719
Picture isn't correct. The equation is

1^2 + i*(-i) = c^2

c=sqrt(2)

>>10851842
>are you denying that carbon concentration in the atmosphere is increasing?
NO. We've put tons of CO2 in the atmosphere.That is a fact.

What I'm saying is that those tons are NEGLIGIBLE to climate change. And plants/fitoplancton love that. The planet is getting greener. You ecofascists should be happy about that

>>10851859
Cool. Except do you have a way of independently verifying your method works? Do you know how much CO2 dissolves into the ice over hundreds of thousands of years? How much breaks down into other chemicals?

>>10851862
So if the carbon in the atmosphere has increased, do you agree the oceans will acidify?
Also where is the extra carbon coming from that bumped the earth's atmosphere from cycles of 180 to 300ppm to more than 400ppm today?

>>10851861
>i*(-i)

>>10851816
>>empirical evidence are made up-ad hoc computer simulations
Models being correct is only once piece of evidence among many. Why are you lying?

>>simulations are failing since the 80s
Pic related. Why are you lying?

>>simulations doesn't fit with geological records
Here's 3 million years of accurate paleoclimate modeling under the same assumptions as current models:
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/4/eaav7337

Why are you lying?

>>trusting governments
LOL but people should trust a known liar like you?

>>10851864
>Except do you have a way of independently verifying your method works?
yes it's called peer reviewing
> Do you know how much CO2 dissolves into the ice over hundreds of thousands of years?
yes, gas permeation has been studied for a long time
e.g.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1959.tb00041.x
We can then use this type of information to interpret measurements and produce projected concentrations at different times
>How much breaks down into other chemicals?
about 0, since air is nitrogen and O2 mostly, with traces of CO2 and other gases. CO2 does react with liquid water (dissolution to make carbonic acid). But the whole point of ice cores is that they were ice when they formed and they remained as ice to this day.
Finally let's suppose our measurements are actually UNDERestimating carbon concentration from 400k to a few thosand years ago. Since the graph shows consistent levels of CO2 accross the period, your point would mean that CO2 concentration was higher 400k years ago and was actually decreasing until humans came into play. Which still makes humans the main culprits of the current increase in CO2 concentration.

>>10851803
I agree. We should have some sort of screening test before anyone is allowed to post on an anonymous primordial soup kitchen recipe book. Keep out the riff-raff with internet devices.

>>10851874
>do you agree the oceans will acidify?
Fitoplancton/plants will eat that carbon
how do you know there isn't more co2 coming from thermal vents?

>>10851901
>>10851864
>Except do you have a way of independently verifying your method works?
nvm I just understood your actual question.

http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-cores/ice-core-basics/

>This method provides detailed records of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide going back over 650,000 years[6]. Ice core records globally agree on these levels, and they match instrumented measurements from the 1950s onwards, confirming their reliability. Carbon dioxide measurements from older ice in Greenland is less reliable, as meltwater layers have elevated carbon dioxide (CO2 is highly soluble in water). Older records of carbon dioxide are therefore best taken from Antarctic ice cores.

>>10851906
>Fitoplancton/plants will eat that carbon
prove it, I don't believe it will be enough. Please prove that while these have not been able to keep up for the last hundreds of years, they will magically be able to from now on.
>how do you know there isn't more co2 coming from thermal vents?
I don't, since we don't have a measurement of every single thermal vent's output. However I do have accounting that shows that our output of CO2 in the atmosphere is enough to explain the sudden increase in CO2 concentration without needing to invoke a sudden increase in thermal vent activity and adding some sort of sink that would absorb extra human emissions.
What are your estimates of human emissions over the last 200 years, let's say at a resolution of 10 years?

>>10851897
>>Models being correct
really? see pic related
>>accurate paleoclimate modeling
co2 was higher than 1000ppm in the past with the Earth fully populated of life
tell me why it decreased?

stop shilling pseudwarmologist. the earth will cool between the next 50 years. Mark my words

>>10851719
We use real numbers to measure lengths because the real line is an ordered metric field, you retard. The complex plane is a metric field, but it has no intrinsic order on it, hence why you end up with shit like that when the absolute value of both sides is one. If this were on the real line (and both numbers were positive since negative lengths are meaningless (vectors don't count. They have positive length, but a negative orientation/scalar multiplier)), you could say that the sum of two sides is greater than the length of the other side, which is a necessary requirement for being a triangle (HINT HINT). You can't here because you can't compare i+1 to 0 with "<" or ">", just that with "!=" and "=" (of which it's clearly the former),you're too autistic to realize how dumb this picture is and how a length of 0 just be a fucking point, not a line segment.

TL;DR: You are a fucking stupid autist for pushing this mathematically impossible "imaginary triangle" meme and you should kill yourself for it

>>10851918
>>Fitoplancton/plants will eat that carbon
>prove it,
Earth is getting greener, which makes sense since plants suck up CO2. The carbon generates cellulose and O2 is pumped into the atmosphere
>>we don't have a measurement of every single thermal vent's output.
you admit we are making assumptions without all CO2 input data
was it some Gigatons per year? I can't find the data right now

>>10851912
So the answer is no. They only verified their method is accurate back to the 50s. A far cry from hundreds of thousands of years.

>>10851855
Nice fake graph. Also, see >>10851854

>>10851852
Falsification is not the same as finding evidence for a theory.

>>10851944
you literally dismiss everything else I said to support that it's valid. You're not interested in facts. Good luck living a miserable alternative reality life

>>10851692
Argumentum ad 'argumentum ad':
You just call something 'argumentum ad' and invalidates someone else's arguments

>>10851970
argumentum ad projectium

>>10851862
>What I'm saying is that those tons are NEGLIGIBLE to climate change.
What you're saying is contradicted by fundamental chemistry, thermodynamics, and direct observation of radiative forcing from CO2 via radiative spectroscopy.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25731165/

>>10851906
>how do you know there isn't more co2 coming from thermal vents?
Because carbon from fossil fuels has an isotopic signature. The change in the isotopic ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere shows that fossil fuels are the source of the increase.

>>10851692
What is scientific consensus? How do we get rid of it?

>>10851837
Yes they are. They want to produce energy more efficiently and to be less wasteful, so do it you fat fuck. What would captain Kirk think? Oh, this civilisation digs shit out of the ground and sets fire to it. Pathetic.

>>10851970
Sounds like the pure patos version of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
>Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false.

>>10851692
>No one else sees my imaginary friend so they don’t believe in him
>Dur ad populum

>>10852075
I Am/Can/Do/Will!

>>10851920
>really? see pic related
LOL this uses a common trick among deniers of aligning the data on a single year. This means that if the data sets disagree widely on that year, the disagreement gets propagated throughout the data. The proper way to align data sets is along an average of several years so that one year's variability does not affect the comparison. Pic related is the data properly aligned.

The image is also lying about what it's presenting. It's not showing 90 models, it's showing 90 model runs of one model, the CMIP 5 model.

Also, the image uses outdated satellite data that was shown to have large errors due to orbital biases. Current UAH data agrees very well with HADCRUT.

Lastly, this doesn't respond to accurate model I posted. Clearly models have not been wrong since the 80s.

>co2 was higher than 1000ppm in the past with the Earth fully populated of life
tell me why it decreased?
This was caused by the evolution of CO2-eating plankton. They covered the oceans and when they died they would sink to the ocean floor. Over millions of years massive amounts of carbon were pulled out of the atmosphere and sequestered, eventually turning into fossil fuel. It was this sequestration which allowed the climate to cool, resulting in the evolution of mammals, including our ancestors. Ironically, we are now releasing that same carbon, that took millions of years to sequester, back into the atmosphere in only a few hundred. What could possibly go wrong?

>>10851933
>Earth is getting greener, which makes sense since plants suck up CO2.
Yet CO2 is rapidly increasing, which means plants are not making up for the increase. Duh.

>you admit we are making assumptions without all CO2 input data
Isotope analysis is not an assumption.

>>10851801
This
>>10851816
Fuck you you're wrong

>>10851692
Your reasoning is wrong, even independently of the topic at hand.
You said:
I have the axiom : (because many people said Y, then Y is true) is wrong
I have the proposition : because of scientific consensus on X, X is true
The proposition matches the content of the parenthesis of my axiom, so I can substitute it.
This gives: (because of scientific consensus on X, X is true) is false. Qed.
Here X = climate change, but it could be anything.
The error is that the proposition cannot be matched with the axiom. More precisely, "scientific consensus" is not equivalent to "many people". The whole concept of scientific consensus has been defined so that logical arguments could be accepted as proofs. Said differently, the very reason scientific consensus has been defined is to be able to state "scientific consensus on X implies X".
It's precise definition is : many people gave logical arguments for X and there is no know proofs of " X is wrong".
We accept scientific consensus as an axiom in practice because it is impossible to make absolute mathematical proofs about reality (cf. Physics). So scientific consensus with logical arguments is the best alternative that we know of.

Tl;DR you're saying that scientific consensus is not an argument for anything (about reality). It's wrong by definition, and anybody with the slightest scientific education knows this.

>>10851923
Based and math pilled.

>>10851692
"This proposition must be true because many people believe is" is not the same as "informed people recognize that this proposition is probably true."

>>10851962
yes it is. evidence is when other theories are falsified and yours isn't. if your theory isn't distinct enough that possible observations greatly differentiate it from everything else it sounds pretty shitty and subjective.

>>10852331
yeah those statements are different. one of them means something and one is a weasel worded hedge

>>10851692
you can't make government employees understand that climate change is bogus because their salaries depend upon not understanding this

>>10851692
>global warming
is little more than code for
>information denial
it means that raw data collected is not shared with the public, nor is the rationale for associating the collected data with historical climate data a topic of discussion
the agenda of these anti-scientists is to bully and abuse the public by calling them
>stupid
for not taking the judgements of alarmist freaks on faith

>>10851692
>IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN CLIMATE CHANGE THEN YOU'RE A STUPID IDIOT AND A REPUBLICAN

>>10852657
This but absolutely unironically. If you don't think anthropogenic climate change is real, with all the evidence we have, you're either delusional, dishonest or actually retarded and incapable of intelligent thoughts.

If you can demonstrate that the believing party are statistically more likely to be right than wrong, then it isn't fallacious. In fact, it becomes less fallacious the more accurate the party is

>>10852679
So you're just 49% probability dumbfuck, not the more! You probably win it.

>>10852689
Are you ASL or just a boomer?

>>10852694
*ESL

>>10852694
Having bullet just in one chamber is dangerous if you have 6 chambers and fire 6 times on your head.

I'm just gonna left this here:

back in the 1900s the consensus was that the ether must exist, even after the michelson-morley experiment the scientific community still belived that theres must be a substrata for the propagation of EM "waves".

maxwell, faraday... even einstein belived that the ether must exist it was only around the 1930s that the ether consensus started to change.

this post is not about the ether, its about "scientific consensus".

>>10852797
>even einstein
>implying he was greater than or equal to maxwell and faraday

Fucking hate this meme

>>10852797
This story shows that there is some inertia to the scientific community in certain cases, but it did correct itself after a while. I bet there's lots cases where the consensus corrects itself much faster. And some of these might come from faulty results. Thus the inertia might even be preferred in some cases.

The scientific consensus is the approved narrative and you are dumb for thinking that it corresponds with the validity of the claims in question.

>>10851789
Imagine believing this

>>10851855
>hur dur you're all wrong, the science is all bullshit but my fake graph is actual real
Calling you a fucking idiot would be an immense understatement

>>10851933
I like how there's a sharp line in the net change exactly along the US-Canada border.

>>10852663
based

>>10851855
That graph is literally fake, the medieval warm period and the period marked ''Rome'' here were not global. People post this all the time, and they usually use greenland icecores to base this off, at least in the case of medieval warm period. That is not global.

>>10851970
This is going to get recursive, isn't it?

>>10852644
Crappy /pol/post, bu it does bring up a point -- the science of Climate Change has become pretty hopelessly entangled with the politics of climate change, to the extent that I am doubtful that contrary evidence could be given a fair hearing, were it to emerge, and there is massive confusion (largely among lay people but among some scientists as well) between understanding what science says about climate change and what political responses might be used to address it.

>>10852940
While I agree that a collectively "approved narrative" cannot fully capture the nuance of ongoing research, I think it would be bizzarre if scientific consensus didn't to some nontrivial degree reflect the evidence we currently have. There are lots of different reasons to use the notion of scientific consensus. Some of those who talk about scientific consensus will do so simply to remind you about the existence of particular results. Others have much less noble motives for the use of the notion, regardless of whether they hail or condemn the narrative in question. In other words, your condemnation reflects back on yourself. It's not flattering.

>>10852530
>yes it is. evidence is when other theories are falsified and yours isn't.
This doesn't follow. You need lots of evidence to falsify every theory but your own, while only one piece of evidence is needed to falsify your single theory. So your analogy only goes one way. It only takes one denier to falsify AGW. Yet all have failed.

>>10853065
The only reason it would not be given a fair hearing is because AGW is so well evidenced that it is part of the status quo, like evolution. Politically, we would be relieved to not have to solve such a large problem.

>>10852653
What raw data is not publicly available that needs to be?

What collected data is being associated with historical data?

Your incredibly vague accusations lead me to believe you have no clue what you're talking about.

>>10852797
The current consensus is that the ether doesn't exist... so what exactly is your point? If you're going to argue the consensus shouldn't be trusted, you can't take the current consensus as fact in order to do so.

>>10852084
>It's not showing 90 models, it's showing 90 model runs of one model, the CMIP 5 model.
You're wrong, CMIP5 is not a model. It stands for Climate Model Intercomparison Project. Each number at the end of CMIP corresponds to the IPCC AR report, so CMIP5 for IPCC AR5 and CMIP6 for IPCC AR6.

The list of participating instutions and countries are listed
https://portal.enes.org/data/enes-model-data/cmip5/resolution

Everyone is welcome to participate in CMIP following
https://pcmdi.llnl.gov/CMIP6/Guide/modelers.html
but for some reasons deniers can't make their own models and predictions

>>10853100
Would you listen to yourself? You appeal to authority and use anecdotal evidence in defense of a logical fallacy in a thread that is made to mock the absurdity of same fallacy.

>>10851694
All data hitherto modern instrumentation is invalid and conjecture. Only valid sample window is that of the past 200 years, and that's an incredibly short window in the grand scheme of things.

>>10853321
>science is literally meaningless as a method of discovering the truth. It's all just an appeal to authority
kek..

>>10851859
>yes we do, it's called air bubbles trapped in the ice you fucking faggot.
OHNONONONO, these are not reliable at all.

Estimation of gas record alteration in very low accumulation ice cores
https://www.clim-past-discuss.net/cp-2019-94/

Revision of the EPICA Dome C CO2 record from 800 to 600kyr before present
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014GL061957

>>10851901
How do you know CO2 is not eaten or produced by bacteria in ice. You dont.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/fb16/987eee50987c88a1fa981d61b7aacaf2b90e.pdf
Air in polar ice has about the same composition as atmospheric air at the time of
ice formation. This allows to determine the composition, especially the concentration of
greenhouse gases, in the past. However, the air composition in the ice can be slightly altered
by chemical and biological processes in the ice. The reliability of long term trends can be
determined by comparing records from different ice cores. For short duration details and
time lags such comparisons are not possible due to uncertainties of the age scales of records
from different cores. In this case very detailed records along sections of ice cores show
whether the scatter of the results is larger than the theoretical expected one. A larger scatter
is assumed to be caused by reactions between impurities in the ice which show generally
short term variations. A low scatter of detailed high resolution records is therefore, a prerequisite for reliable records.

>>10851901
Finally these "scientists" ignore CO2 data from Greenland, which disagree with CO2 from Antarctica and doesnt' fit the narrative
https://notrickszone.com/2019/07/22/1980s-science-ice-cores-show-co2-naturally-rose-200-ppm-65-ppm-100-years-during-the-early-holocene/

>>10853321
Not sure if you are trolling, completely misunderstood or projecting in the rage of being called out on your bullshit.

>>10853339
>paleoclimate data is invalid because I say so
No.

>>10851692
>Consensus
what i mean by that is that the evidence is overwhelming and that people who ignoring it are in denial, it isn't merely an ad populum

>>10853813
>>Consensus
either way that's a word to remove from my vocabulary because brainlets like OP will make that retarded association

>>10853245
>You need lots of evidence to falsify every theory but your own
no you don't. any good evidence will falsify most of them at once.

>>10854029
Trump supporters say what now

>>10854048
>i have a fundamental misunderstanding about what science is but maybe i can deflect if i shitpost about politics
to the extent you are incapable of differentiating your theory from any other theory, your theory is no more valid than that other theory. you have some ridiculous mindset where your favorite theory gets special status and the burden of proof is on everyone else to knock it down. there is no "burden of proof". every piece of evidence is simultaneously providing information that the world does or does not align with every theory. showing a theory is right is the exact same thing as showing all other theories are wrong.

a more succinct way to put it is that knowledge is bayesian and you're a tunnel visioning frequentist dumbfuck because you have some kind of vested interest in a particular theory

>>10851886
>i don't understand modulus of a complex number
>i don't understand conjugate of a complex number
why are you on this board?

>>10852059
>what would captain kirk think?
This is the essence of leftist lack of self-esteem.
>i need some fictional character to tell me what is right and wrong
>drumpf is voldemord
>i'm totally not a fully programmed npc
Sad stuff, being this much of an empty shell.

>>10854133
>i need some fictional character to tell me what is right and wrong

Literally religion. I assume there’s some goofy evo psych explanation.

Did you just take philosophy 101, anon? Arguments from authority are not fallacious if the person you are appealing to is qualified to make the judgement, and similarily arguments from popularity are not fallacious if the group is qualified to make the judgement.

>>10854211
They have proven themselves unqualified.

>>10854216
ok retard

>>10851837
activist here, i just want us to be more efficient and less wasteful, socialism is pretty gay and utopias in general are for children.

>>10852797
The old consensus was that humans had no effect, the current consensus is that we do.
The old consensus was that ether existed, the current consensus is that it doesn't.
The difference between you and science is that science is able to take into account new information and new evidence, while YOU only take into account what validates your wishful thinking.

>>10853530
>>10853516
>>10853504
>literally links papers
>thinks their results are not taken into account but he's able to think about it
how does it feel to have a 2 digit IQ?

>>10851692
Kek. Literally all OP had to do is post a single .jpg. to generate all this amount of buttblast. Why are people who believe in climate divinations so easily offended though? It's like we're dealing with a new iteration of SJWs. Too bad we can't convert it into an energy source. Every other /sci/ topic is very chill in comparison.

>>10854464
>Why are people who believe in climate divinations so easily offended though?
Because the Earth's climate actually matters, and morons like you regurgitating Heartland Institute propaganda is a large part of it's been so hard to talk people out of fucking it up.

>>10854436
How does it feel to believe bell distribution outside of RNG?

>>10851692
Its settled

>>10854483
Peak irony that you would use the word propaganda when climate fortune tellers are the ones blasting mainstream media for a tax scam. Anyways, this board is called /sci/ so please stop talking about non-science related topics and go to /x/.

>>10851692
Are there any papers that look at the predictions of climate change models?

>>10854029
So please explain what "good evidence" would mean for the statement "all swans are and have always been white."

>>10854084
>to the extent you are incapable of differentiating your theory from any other theory, your theory is no more valid than that other theory.
How does that apply to AGW?

>you have some ridiculous mindset where your favorite theory gets special status and the burden of proof is on everyone else to knock it down.
This is clearly a strawman. AGW is not a "favorite theory," it is the only theory which fits the evidence. The burden of proof has already been met by massive amounts of published research, so the burden of proof now lies with you.

>showing a theory is right is the exact same thing as showing all other theories are wrong.
There is an asymmetry in the amount of evidence required to show all other theories are wrong vs. showing the one theory is wrong. For universal statements it is basically impossible to prove every other theory wrong but easy to prove the universal statement wrong. For example "all swans are white" can never be proven by exhaustion but can easily be disproven by observing a single black swan.

>a more succinct way to put it is that knowledge is bayesian
Then please explain how AGW is not highly likely to be true according to the evidence.

>>10851692
Twice, at least, the Nobel Prize has been awarded to scientists that demonstrated the vast majority of their peer were utterly mistaken.

No real scientists should ever make such an argument today.

>>10854844
The Nobel Prize would only awarded to those who agree with the consensus at the time the prize is awarded, so your argument is self-defeating.

>>10851968
Says ice core records “globally agree”, yet we have ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica only, and the older Greenland ones are unreliable.
How do they globally agree?

>>10854436
>>thinks their results are not taken into account
The point of published manuscript is it is novel and new. I cannot rewrite a paper about gravity by copy pasting Newton's. It is clearly has not been taken into account

>>10854230
The rebuttal of a scholar. Have faith in my people or you are retarded.

>>10854433
>the difference between you and science
>completely misses the point
Science is not solved, we are not gods.

>>10854537
I made no claims about specific theories being correct or not. I'm just telling you
>Falsification is not the same as finding evidence for a theory.
is wrong. To cast doubt on a theory you don't have to actually find a contradiction making the chance of that theory 0. You can just point out the theory doesn't differentiate itself from other theories. You can also question the prior which people used when determining their degree of belief in a theory.

>burden of proof
There is no "burden of proof". That's a binary, dishonest faggot way of looking at knowledge that discounts uncertainty. If you want to discount uncertainty you actually have to do it yourself. And saying "look how we haven't contradicted anything yet" is not dispelling uncertainty until you can say "and look all other options have contradicted things". The point of einstein's quote is that if there's a good argument one person can make it. Not that he has dibs on truth until someone can find an actual contradiction and that's why it would only take one of them.

This specifically matters when multiple possible theories predict different things. (Which multiple theories including the statement "humans significantly contributed to climate change" do, incidentally. So calling them all the same theory is pretty dubious.) When you're predicting things you care about how confident you are that you're right and not just whether it's been shown you're definitely wrong.

>>10854521
Well you could define a swan, figure out what makes things white, and explain what makes you think all swans have always been white. The standard of "good evidence" is pretty high when you're making a precise, wide ranging statement like that. Also I'm not seeing what this thought experiment about an observably false statement is supposed to show.

>>10851694
But why these climate tricks are forced by paid shills, cia niggers and terrorists and why should I trust them?

>>10854123
neither of those have anything to do with the picture
what's your IQ

>>10854914
>Says ice core records “globally agree”, yet we have ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica only
Gee it's almost like you can only get ice cores where there is deep ice...

>and the older Greenland ones are unreliable.
>How do they globally agree?
Older lawyers are unreliable, newer lawyers agree. It's not that hard unless you are a pathetic denier grasping at straws.

>>10851692
Science isn't a belief, it's a demonstrable fact.

"I believe OP is a faggot because he makes shit posts"

is not the same as

"Here is a list of all the people that have had consensual anal sex with OP over the course of a year. Therefor we may conclude that OP is a faggot."

>>10855212
>To cast doubt on a theory you don't have to actually find a contradiction making the chance of that theory 0. You can just point out the theory doesn't differentiate itself from other theories. You can also question the prior which people used when determining their degree of belief in a theory.
None of this contradicts anything I said, nor is it relevant to the asymmetry between falsification and evidence for a theory.

>There is no "burden of proof".
>If you want to discount uncertainty you actually have to do it yourself.
You just contradicted yourself. Again, there is a massive amount of published scientific research which you keep ignoring. That is what the consensus is, not a popularity contest.

>The point of einstein's quote is that if there's a good argument one person can make it.
No, the point is that it only takes one argument to falsify a theory. AGW, like every scientific theory, cannot be proven with one argument. You completely failed to understand the quote and applied it incorrectly by assuming a falsification is analogous to a consensus.

>Not that he has dibs on truth until someone can find an actual contradiction and that's why it would only take one of them.
No one said that though. Einstein was criticizing the argument, not proving his own. Similarly, the consensus does not have to be correct for the argument that the consensus doesn't matter to be incorrect.

>This specifically matters when multiple possible theories predict different things. (Which multiple theories including the statement "humans significantly contributed to climate change" do, incidentally. So calling them all the same theory is pretty dubious.)
I have no idea what you're referring to.

>When you're predicting things you care about how confident you are that you're right and not just whether it's been shown you're definitely wrong.
Again, where did I say anything to the contrary?

>>10855212
>Well you could define a swan, figure out what makes things white, and explain what makes you think all swans have always been white.
A hypothetical explanation is hardly good evidence. That sounds a lot harder and less conclusive than simply observing a black swan.

>Also I'm not seeing what this thought experiment about an observably false statement is supposed to show.
This was already explained to you, there is an asymmetry between falsification and proof of a theory. That is why falsification is a necessity for a theory to be scientific, while proof is not.

>>10855369
So where were these other deep ice cores taken if not Greenland or Antarctica? Why are they reliable but old Greenland ones are not?
Older ones obviously do not “globally agree”. What is the cut off point for reliability?
One of the problems with these graphs is that they make no acknowledgment of low res or unreliable data.

>>10856958
>So where were these other deep ice cores taken if not Greenland or Antarctica?
Are you illiterate? Where else is there deep ice?

>Why are they reliable but old Greenland ones are not?
This was explained in the article, they're contaminated by meltwater.

>Older ones obviously do not “globally agree”.
Because older layers from Greenland are contaminated by meltwater. What is your point?

>What is the cut off point for reliability?
3.50

>One of the problems with these graphs is that they make no acknowledgment of low res or unreliable data.
Which graph? The only one posted in this thread shows Vostok data which is neither low res not unreliable. Are you done talking out of your ass?

>>10851692
But the scientists don’t believe it because many said it was true,

>>10851692
It is good to circumcise the penis by force.
Vaccines are safe and effective.
The umbilical cord should be clamped before the completion of placental transfusion.

bumping for scientific consensus.