/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14659718
Just read your own sources next time, retard.

>The correction prompted some climate deniers to wheel out the conspiracy theory that manmade global warming is made up.

>Some Twitter users suggested the study was funded by the Democrats, that human-induced planetary warming was invented by former presidential hopeful Al Gore so he could buy a house, and that decades of evidence-based research into the phenomenon constituted "pseudoscience".

>But scientists rallied round the authors, pointing out that the process surrounding the Nature paper's publication and correction was, really, how scientific research is supposed to work.

>"Science is a human endeavour and it's therefore imperfect. What's important is that results are scrutinised and replicated by others so that we can assess what is robust and what isn't," Gavin A. Schmidt, director at the Goddard Institute for Space Sciences at NASA, told AFP.

>>14659718
>Why can nobody prove theories that suggest mankind influences the climate?

Exon proved it in the 70's with their own scientists. Then they spent decades spreading propaganda (global cooling, lol) and poisoning the well on climate science so the truth stays buried.

You gotta remember, admitting climate change is real, is admitting big oil is responsible, and big oil owns this wold. They've owned it for centuries now. Centuries!! They've started wars, ended nations, and wouldn't blink to destroy a world if they can rule the rubble.

>>14659718
Bro just go outside. It’s 107 bro I’m dying. Stop this bro please…

>>14659749
>big oil spread the lies about global cooling n-n-ot scientists!!!
Is this really your best attempt at derailing the thread with more of your climate change nonsense? This is exactly the kind of refusal to own mistakes that makes people not trust scientists.

>>14659747
Yes and the whole point is that scientists routinely present bullshit as fact. How can we trust them when they lie so often? Where is the evidence for climate change that accounts for the reality of correlation and causation being inherently different categories?

>>14659752
Move north, stupid ape.

>1980: climate change is fake! it's a liberal conspiracy designed to ruin US economy by limiting fossil fuel consumptions.
>1990: ok climate change is real, but it's cyclical and not caused by mankind.
>2000: ok climate change is real and caused by mankind but it's not as bad as the liberal fearmongers say it is
>2010: ok climate change is real and caused by mankind and it's as bad as the liberals say it is but it's not my problem, it's my great grandchildren's problem
>2022 climate change is fake!

Conservatards have come full circle.

>>14659780
Lies

>>14659758
I haven't been able to find any scientific papers or scientists asserting claims of global cooling. From what I can tell it's mostly the press that was speculating about it, and then speculations about speculations that grew wild and out of control.

Did you misunderstand me, and think I I said it was something scientists were claiming? Why would you believe me on that point but ignore everything else?
>refusal to own mistakes
Just admit that you've been cherry picking all day long (nice cherries in OP BTW) and you've run out of cherries to pick and now you're begging 4chan to find more cherries for you to pick. I should say "Please stop this. It's unhealthy for you, and anyone dumb enough to believe you" but we all know you're just going to do what you WANT to do.

>>14659838
>Climate alarmists doesn't know how to search for research articles
Not even surprised.

>>14659774
Please bro I’m begging you I don’t want to become a stupid flaggot. Just recycle bro please…

>>14659838
>n-n-no evidence of that round of lies
Kek. Nice cop out you fucking idiot.

>>14659749
>It’s big oil!
>It’s the capitalist class!
>It’s the Jews!
>It’s the Free Masons!
Can you schizo-nuts just take the world as-is for once?

>>14659762
>scientists routinely present bullshit as fact.
Scientists routinely peer review and correct bullshit. Who do you think finds the fault in these studies? Worthless retards on the internet? Or other scientists?
>How can we trust them when they lie so often?
They don't lie, they're just wrong.
>Where is the evidence for climate change that accounts for the reality of correlation and causation being inherently different categories?
Ask a scientist lmao.

>>14659857
>t. Not a scientist
You have no idea what you're talking about. Scientists who go against the consensus are ridiculed and treated like shit for decades. All the fossils who opposed the new idea die off and the younger folk finally accept the facts. But science doesn't work like that anymore. Now it's a constant influx of yes men who can't disagree for fear of being canceled. New guard especially so.

>>14659872
Don't question the sciencism you ignorant chud.

>>14659718
Here's proof: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/174407/

No climate denier will ever refute this.

>>14659780
what is as bad as the liberals say?

>>14659891
>space instruments can't distinguish it
>uses space instrument data from 2003-2018
wow that's some great paper you linked, retard

>>14659913
Are those supposed to be contradicting statements? The instrument can't do something directly but the data from that instrument can be used to do that thing. Are you OK?

>>14659951
>thinks a space instrument can "do something" by itself
you're too dumb to even understand basic english let alone a science article

>>14659951
Christ you're a moron holy shit

>>14659872
>Now it's a constant influx of yes men who can't disagree for fear of being canceled. New guard especially so.

you don't know much about the history of science.

>climate deniers using science to denounce science

kek.

>>14659718
intellectually dishonest, and shilling for those that want the status quo. not science.

>>14659852
how can you take the world as-is when we have evidence of people spending billions to convince you that it isn't

>>14660021
Take your meds. Explain why scientists chose to mislead the world so many times with false claims and wildly inaccurate predictions about climate change. Explain why we should believe their current conflation of correlation with causation.

>>14659969
>>thinks a space instrument can "do something" by itself
Yeah, it measures radiative flux by itself.

>>14659972
You're the one who couldn't understand a simple sentence in the abstract of the paper. lmao

As I predicted, no climate denier can refute the paper. They're retarded.

>>14660044
just stop digging your own grave, idiot. you've now managed to prove you can't read and admitted you're lying all in one post

>>14660043
>Explain why scientists chose to mislead the world so many times with false claims

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy
>From the late 1970s and through the 1980s, Exxon, one of predecessors of ExxonMobil, had a public reputation as a pioneer in climate change research.[1] Exxon funded internal and university collaborations, broadly in line with the developing public scientific approach, and developed a reputation for expertise in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2).[2] Between the 1970s and 2015, Exxon and ExxonMobil researchers and academic collaborators published dozens of research papers.[3] ExxonMobil provided a list of over 50 article citations from that period.[4][5]

This is like OJ Simpson hiring a private investigator to figure out who the murderer was.
Is this too difficult to understand? A giant industry spanning the entire globe would chose to cover their asses for damages they cause?
I don't know why you people even pretend. Are you being paid to act this dumb or are you this way naturally?

>>14659758
Are you a shill or a useful idiot?

>>14660050
Nice projection. As I predicted, no climate denier can refute the paper. They're retarded.

>>14660059
So your 'theory' is that a third party framed science to look like incompetent buffoons? That sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. Next you'll be telling me that pedophiles run the world and that the vaccines don't stop the spread. Take your fucking meds.

>>14660044
It's an obviously flawed paper. It confuses correlation for causation.
>>14660068
Not an argument.

>>14660074
you have no clue what the paper even says because you can't read. also you post like a bot, specifically like a retarded bot with no access to an english language dictionary

>>14660084
>Not an argument.
So you didn't read the paper. Sounds like useful idiot behavior to me.

>>14660093
Anyone can say that without providing an argument. It adds nothing to the conversation. Grow up.

>>14660093
>So you didn't read the paper
lmao, imagine debating someone on 4chan and thinking that they will come up with a coherent argument on anything.

you are wasting your time.

>>14660084
>Not an argument.

Actually, he raises a good point.
He just posted a paper on organized climate denial, giving you proof, asking if you are part of this organized climate denial as a paid shill, and you just ignore it.

I'd like to hear the answer to this question, instead of you ignoring it. Are you a shill? Are you part of this global conspiracy of climate denial? A low level worker in the conspiracy, but still a part the conspiracy that's destroying the planet. Are you being paid well enough to help destroy your home planet? How much? And why help them when it'll hurt you in the long run? Judas got paid 30 silver, which is $100-$500 in present day value. You getting paid more than that?

>>14660105
I pay money to shit on climate alarmists. I fly out to their local conferences. I then litter all over both inside and outside, mostly with empty beef jerky bags. I shit on the floor in the bathroom while they're all attending seminars. I go to the local bars and treat the wait staff like garbage, loudly exclaiming how important I am as I'm an attendee at the climate conference. I refuse to tip, again letting them know I only get reimbursed for food, not tips.

Of course I don't get reimbursed for anything. But I don't care. I spend upward to $5k-$10k to tarnish climatologist reputations. I always use fake names as well, and sometimes even pay for disguises so I don't get made.

Furthermore I'll spread misinformation about climatology, like France will be an arid desert in 30 years. Oh and I've gotten a few climatologists cars towed for illegally parking.

>>14660088
I don't see any refutation in that post, just baseless insults. Please try again. Maybe if you really try this time, you'll racecourse your retardation and actually make an argument.

>>14660105
I do it for fun because of my personal feelings about scientists actually.

>>14660131
>failed to read the paper he posted
dude you're literally a retarded bot, who posts a paper they didn't (and one assumes can't) even read

>>14660098
>He still hasn't read the paper
Confirmed useful idiot

>>14659718
If you knew the science you wouldn't say that and your sources are conspiracy sites.

>>14660123
>>14660135
Confirmed useful idiot

>>14660143
>>failed to read the paper he posted
Your projecting again. I read the paper when it was first published. You didn't read the paper, you chose one sentence or of the abstract and misrepresented it. Why do you keep posting when you just confirm my prediction over and over? Is because you're retarded and can't even help by yourself by not posting.

>>14660068
>PDF is sideways
Did not read. Do not care. Seethe and cope idiot. It's obviously a crap paper. Don't even make me post that fags credentials (or rather lack thereof)

>>14660155
I read the paper. You clearly didn't.
>>14660162
Read the fucking paper, pal.

>>14660163
yeah right, you can't even read or write normal english sentences, let alone a paragraph, let alone more than one paragraph. fucking lol dumb ass retard

>Riley E. Dunlap is Dresser Professor and Regents Professor of Sociology Emeritus at Oklahoma State University.
Not science. Doesn't belong here. Move that shit to /pol/ where it belongs.

>>14660175
>He chaired the American Sociological Association’s Task Force on Sociology and Global Climate Change, and is co-editor of Climate Change and Society: Sociological Perspectives (Oxford, 2015) produced by it.
Here's literally an organized shill lmfao. The actual definition of one.

>>14659718
because they are atheistic materialistic scum, lower than prostitutes

>>14660175
>>14660181
>1992-1997 asst professor
He failed tenure. Hahahahah. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Want moar? Here's his CV. Look at the timeline of his publications and match it to his job at the time. Ask yourself why he failed to get tenure and eventually found himself back in university as an endowed professor (someone is paying him a LOT of money to peddle his shit, which just so happens to coincide with when he becomes a "highly cited" researcher). Money never lies. To the shill in this thread who keeps citing Dunlap like a god: you will never be a real scientist. Kys.

>>14660175
Okay, one of the contributors to one of the links in OP isn't pure science. So what? It's a scientific topic with numerous scientists in this very thread.

>>14659718

It's a shame to see genuine climate alarmist shills citing such poor quality sources. All of the ones posted so far ITT are easily debunked. There do exist (but still flawed) datasets that suggest mankind might be causing some climate change, and they are more difficult to deobfuscate.

>>14660165
>>14660166
>>14660175
>>14660181
>>14660195
>>14660216
>2 shekels have been added to your account

>>14660229
Not an argument.
>Anon provides dudes literal CV, dismantling his alleged expertise and exposing him as a shill
>HURRR DURRR NO UR A SHILL
This is why you'll never be a scientist