/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3740003
(cont)

So, am I an expert in climate science? No. But, I know that 97% of climate scientists agree that man-made climate change is real*, and I’m inclined to believe them. These scientists have the education I lack, they’ve studied things I haven’t, they know things I don’t. These people have dedicated themselves to trying to understand the earth’s climate, and who am I, some asshole on the internet, to say I know better?

Yet, every asshole on the internet, and in the media, seems to think they know better than these people, just as creationists seem to think that, despite their lack of education in the relevant fields, they are more qualified to interpret the evidence. With every other field of science they are content to trust expert opinion over that of political and religious commentators, but with evolution and climate change, exactly the opposite is true. They trust scientists, and the scientific method, with respect to every field of study, but when it comes to climate science, they are the expert and the scientists are fools.

>>3740010
Sounds like you've been watching the colbert report.

>>3740003
>>3740010
(concluded)

Let me put it this way; If you have a question about:

astronomy, you ask an astronomer
physics, you ask a physicist
chemistry, you ask a chemist
mathematics, you ask a mathematician
cell biology, you ask a biologist
trees, you ask a dendrologist
evolution, you ask Ray Comfort?
climatology, you ask Rush Limbaugh?


TWO OF THESE THINGS ARE NOT LIKE THE OTHERS
Now I’m sure a lot of people are going to jump in here and try to “disprove” global warming. Let me say upfront that unless you are going to somehow show that the consensus of the scientific community has changed over-night, I don’t really care what you have to say. I haven’t written any peer reviewed papers on climate change, but chances are neither have you. But, I choose to listen to the people who HAVE gotten the education, done the research, and written the papers, rather than news commentators. And most of the time so do you, but you seem set on picking on climate science, just as creationists pick on evolutionary science.

*http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf

>>3740014
Not in years. Why? What he say?

>Climate Alarmism = Religion

fix'd

>>3740034
>Evolution=Religion

fix'd

>>3740038
GTFO of my /sci/

>>3740034
>Quantum mechanics = religion

fix'd

If you visit 20 doctors and 19 diagnose a blemish on your nose as cancer, suggesting a particular treatment. The other doctor diagnoses it as eczema and perscribes an ointment (much cheaper than the cancer treatment) made by a company he happens to own shares in. Who would you listen to?

>>3740087
gimme the ointment, I'll try that first.

>>3740087
Then you ask your friend, who happens to be an account, what you should do and he suggests you try the ointment.
Why would you give equal weighting to the one doctor and account as you would the other 19 doctors when debating what you should do?

>>3740110
Maybe the ointment works? If it doesn't, there's nothing stopping me from pursuing the cancer treatment, and then I can sue the other doctor for malpractice.

Regardless of what conclusions one comes to through their examination of the evidence on this issue, what concerns me most on this is the outright hostility that those who examine the issue skeptically and without predetermined notions frequently receive. We SHOULD be skeptical, when extraordinary claims are made, extraordinary evidence should be supplied, and the rational, methodical and skeptical interrogation, comparison and testing of this evidence should be encouraged by both sides, not scorned and met with derision not that dissimilar to that that early modern intellectuals were greeted with by religious bodies such as the Catholic Church.

>>3740087
Get an exacto knife and a bottle of whiskey and cut that over-achieving tough guy zit off.

>>3740057
Any belief in a unquestionable abstract future = religion

>>3740121
>Assuming the ointment doesn't make the cancer worse.

>>3740121
i dont think you quite understand how malpractice works

>>3740123
>those who examine the issue skeptically
typically don't have any expertise in climate science. There is a general consensus amongst those that actually do. And the controversy amongst them isn't whether anthropogenic climate change is real or not, it's whether it's going to be bad, or really bad.

>>2011
>>extrapolating data to make future predictions
ishyadt

Maybe human activity has a hand in climate change, but could it also be related to that big thing in the sky that actually causes the heat? I think probably the giant fusion reactor in the sky has a bit more of an effect on heating the Earth than the human race ever could.

>>3740175
that's been ruled out

>>3740175
>Look at me I'm doing climate science!

>>3740157
Expertise is irrelevant to my statement that it is a good thing for the layman to skeptically investigate various issues in a methodical, scientific way.
Also there is no such thing as a 'scientific' consensus. So I would recommend you never use that ignorant statement again if you wish to impart the illusion of even a basic knowledge of the scientific method.

>>3740189
>>3740182
I find it extremely hard to believe that less than two hundred years of industrialization could seriously affect noticeable climate change. Where's the beef?

>>3740189
Well arn't you a cute little meteorologist!

http://news.discovery.com/earth/meteorologists-as-climate-change-deniers.html

>>3740192
They layman is not qualified to investigate what he does not understand. Why should I trust his conclusions over those with someone who has degrees in the relevant field?

No such thing as consesus? Really? 97% isn't good enough for you? Yeah, I guess that quantum and relativity stuff is BS too.

>>3740203
>>I find it really hard to believe that 200 years of industrialization has had any noticeable impact on our oceans
Meanwhile, in the real world, hard data says otherwise.

>>3740203
>I find it very hard to believe that features as complex as eyes could evolve naturally. Where's the beef?

Solution to global warming
>LFTR
Solution to space colony energy gen.
>LFTR
Solution to peak oil
>LFTR
>Solution to unemployment
>LFTR

>>3740220
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor#Disadvantages

>>3740209
That is what I am saying, the layman should investigate so he DOES understand, and should not be discouraged from doing so by ignorant individuals who know nothing of the scientific method.
I did not say anyone should trust anyone elses conclusions, conclusions are not to be trusted unless they can be reached repeatedly through controlled experiment or thorough non-falsifiable evidence points to them. And yes, there is no such thing as a consensus in science, there are no authorities, and majority opinion does not matter. FACTS and evidence matter, and frankly I do not see why you choose to participate in a discussion on a science board when you have demonstrated thorough ignorance on what science is and what exactly the scientific method entails.

>>3740003
Okay, OP, I like your points, but why did the institute of physics denounce climate science as 'a disgrace to the name of science'? Why then did the royal society of chemists speak out that they backed the institutes position on climate science?

You want to know about physics, ask a physicist you say? Physicists tell me that the earth is going to go into a period of cooling that will completely override any possible anthropogenic effects short of nuclear winter. I trust physicists a lot more than I trust climate 'scientists', after all it was physicists who lead to those innovations you mention, not climate scientists.

You want to know about statistics, ask a statistician you say? Statisticians tell me that climate science data is statistically invalid, and that no (scientific) conclusions can be drawn from it, any conclusions are at best guesswork according to 97% of statisticians. Statisticians have done a lot more good than climate scientists, and I trust their views of statistics a lot more than those of climate scientists.

You want to know about political agendas, ask a politician you say? Political agenda throughout the Western world is strongly enforced by climate change, politicians fund the science, as long as it keeps saying what they want it to say.

You want to know about history, ask a historian you say? History shows that the greatest advancements of humanity come from times of fear, war drives progress more than any other aggregate, war getting too mundane? Maybe the earth catching fire would scare people.

>>3740192
>Expertise is irrelevant to my statement

>Makes claims only those with expertise in that field of study could reasonably make

>>3740220
Solution to people
>LFTR

>>3740238
>>implying

>>3740240
What claims might those be, oh mighty greentexter?

>>3740213
Where is this hard data that you mention? All I've seen in this thread is climatologist circle jerking.

>>3740238
>why did the institute of physics denounce climate science as 'a disgrace to the name of science'?
It didn't.

> Physicists tell me that the earth...
Which Physicists?

>Statisticians tell me that climate science data is statistically invalid
Which statisticians?

Sources or they didn't happen.

>>3740237
>the layman should investigate
But if the "layman" isn't doing his own primary research or demonstrating in an academic journal why he's come to the conclusion that the majority of scientists are wrong, why should anyone who's not insane give a fuck what he thinks???

>>3740251
>>doesn't know how to use Google

>>3740266
OP made this thread because he wants to prove anthropogenic climate change is a reality, so again, I ask. Where's the beef?

>>3740265
I never said anyone should care what he thinks.
You attempt to create strawmen that are directly contradictory to a statement you chose to quote, and you argue against people using the scientific method to come to a logically based intellectually valid conclussion. Why are you here and not on some board of zealotry or pseudo-science?

>>3740238
Still waiting on those sources. I'm especially curious about that first one.

In the meantime, here. Have an Institute of Physic publication that says climate models have, if anything, underestimated the amount of climate change.

http://www.iop.org/publications/iop/2007/file_44083.pdf

“If anything, they are at
the upper end of the band, indicating that the
prediction may be underestimating rather than
overestimating temperature change”

>>3740276
Not the same poster but I believe he was referring to these.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc4202.htm

>>3740271
>people using the scientific method
how exactly do you use a scientific methodology if you're not a researcher in the field of climatology?

>>3740288
Soo.... just more quote mining about "climate gate?"

what if rick perry becomes president

>>3740295
The same way you would any issue, by examining the available evidence. By starting this search without any preconceived notions or non-evidence based conclussions. By checking that there is independ confirmation of the facts. By viewing debates on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view. Not falling for arguments from 'authorites'; in science there are no authorities. Examining more than one hypothesis, not accepting the first that you come across and agree with, then cherry picking evidence to support it and ignoring evidence that goes against it.
Also, using Occams razor, ensuring every link in a chain argument works and being weary and skeptical if one finds evidence contained within a packaging of fallacy, such as Ad hominem, arguments from authority, argument from adverse consequences, appeals to ignorance, observational selection and etc. etc.
Frightening that you need to be told this really.

>>3740350
But why should he bother? Someone more qualified has already done the work, and his conclusions are more likely to be flawed due to his lack of education.

You seem to want to challenge expert opinion just for the sake of being anti-authority.

>>3740384
That is true, we should let others do the work and mindlessly accept what we're told, never questioning anything or educating ones self at all. Let others make up our minds for us.

>You seem to want to challenge expert opinion just for the sake of being anti-authority.

And you seem to want to argue against the scientific method, all that it stands for and skepticism as a whole in favor of apathy, ignorance and blind acceptance.

>>3740296
It was a fairly significant scandal, and it pretty well answers OP's question ("why... climate change denialism is a widely accepted position?"). Its a bit unfair to refer to climate science in the same vein as other sciences with all the politics surrounding it, especially after climate gate.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682697000011

Can't find the full paper, but here's a news article that seems to be talking about it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2011/08/25/did-cloud-just-rain-on-the-global-warming-parade/
2/

And here is the counter argument.

http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/sun2002.pdf

>>3740396
Science is a self questioning and self correcting processes. Scientists submit their papers to review by their peers, compete for funding, constantly try to out-do each-other and make some new discovery that will leave their colleagues in the dust. Science is not a single authority which declares this and that true, which is what makes it that much more impressive when a theory reaches the level of conseus that evolution or anthropological climate change have.

Our hypothetical layman is free to investigate all he wants, but unless he has an education in the relevant field, no one is going to take him seriously, and rightly so.

>>3740410
It was a fairly significant scandal
>No it wasn't. It was a single quote in an email that was taken out of context by the media. All parties involved have been cleared of any wrongdoing multiple times.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/08/24/case-closed-climategate-was-manufactured/\

"We found no basis to conclude that the [Climategate] emails were evidence of research misconduct or that they pointed to such evidence."

"There is no specific evidence that [Mann] falsified or fabricated any data and no evidence that his actions amounted to research misconduct."

>>3740421
Again, consensus is irrelevant and there is no such thing as a scientific consensus.
Again as I've stated MULTIPLE times, I have never once said anyone should care what this hypothetical layman thinks, my original statement simply advocated individuals to investigate this and other issues in a logical scientific manner, and I condemned the ignorant derision such investigation frequently receives from proponents of either side.

>>3740427
>being the biggest target of the people who want to deny the Earth is warming up.

I can't read any further than this, I'm sure its been cleared up or whatever, I don't really care about the whole debate (hence not being up to date on it) but seriously? Do you honestly listen to anything someone who writes in this manner has to say? He's blatantly insulting anyone who disagrees with him here. As I said I don't pay much attention to the debate, but I do know that its between those who don't agree that the driving factor of climate change is anthropogenic and those who do, not those who 'want to deny the Earth is warming up' and those who actually form opinions. This is the worst strawman argument I've ever seen in my life.

>>3740003
>Faith is blind acceptance without evidence, while trust must be earned with evidence
wut, it's funny because the word faith literally means trust.

I don't think there really is climate change denial. Many people, such as myself, understand that the the human race is just beginning to scratch the complex understandings of the global climate. While looking at raw data out of context some portions of the world temperatures have risen slightly in the last 20 years. However as it stands we have absolutely no idea why, so these people don't support expensive sweeping legislation to somehow instantly stop production of greenhouse gases and are immediately called climate change denialists.

like ADD/ADHD, this is a scam by a now-major industry based on lies and deception (like the graph OP is using) and the paying-off of scientists/doctors in order to get people to buy a product they otherwise wouldn't, ie get people addicted to dopaminergic stimulants or pay out the dick for solar panels even though making solar panels is a horrible, horrible process environmentally.

Like any good cause it's polluted by people who want to make money and lie to do so. It's not the scientists or their research that are the problem. It's the .-sucking marketers who make shoddy products that are "eco-friendly" which are often not

>>3740486
>faith literally means trust
I don't think you get words

Who need Science when you can have

FREEDOM, LIBERTY!!!

>>3740505
>paying-off of scientists/doctors in order to get people to buy a product
You mean like tobacco companies paying off doctors to deny that cigarette smoking caused cancer?

>>3740486
Creationists use this same argument: Ignore all of the predictive modeling and decades of research so you can say scientists don't have a good enough picture to make conclusions. Someone thinking "Scientists are lairs", or "Scientists don't know enough yet" both have the same outcome, and the later is easier to convince people of. It's called the pissing in the well strategy.

>>3740552
yes, a lot like that

>>3740547
Don't be bringin' yer Ayn Rand shit 'round HERE, laddy-buck, the world be a depressin' enough place already without THAT harridan!

>>3740602
It is relevant. Libertarians tend to be climate change denialists. An unregulated free market only works the way they want it too in a fantasy world where there are no externalities. An externality is a cost paid by more than just the consumer and provider. Environmental damage is such a cost.

Consensus != reality

I'm sure the Catholic Church had a consensus on the existence of angels and demons. Does that make it fact?

>>3740791
>Catholic Church
>science

>>3740803

>climate change
>science

>>3740791
Scientists do not accept theories based on dogmatic beliefs, they do so on the merits of evidence. Citing a scientific consensus is not an argument from authority it is a testament to the strength of the evidence.

>> Herp derp, there's a scientific consensus that Earthquakes are caused by plate tectonics, but a consensus doesn't mean they are correct because catholics have consensus on the pope.

>>3740812

I don't think you understand how science works. Science isn't based on consensus, it's based on discovery and evidence.

The evidence clearly suggests that there has been minimal global warming over the last few centuries and it's only the IPCC who are skewing the data for their own ends - to impose the carbon tax.

>>3740844
Nope, reality is based on consensus, science is a set of rules by which to obtain consensus.

>>3740844
>The evidence clearly suggests that there has been minimal global warming over the last few centuries
>global warming
Climate. Change.
>the IPCC who are skewing the data for their own ends - to impose the carbon tax
>the IPCC
>imposing the carbon tax
Full retard.

>>3740858
Nope.
>>>/wikipedia/
>>3740861
Climate change = Global warming

Same thing different name

>>3740868
In the same way evolution is natural selection, sure.

>>3740844

If you think scientists are a bunch of retards and you're smarter than they are, what the fuck are you doing on this board?

Trolling would be the answer, hence why you have a tripcode.

I always get the feeling our resident denialist is our resident twoofer is our resident stormfag is our resident holocaust denier is our resident conservative.

I mean /sci/ can't honestly attract that many dedicated retards; some of them- probably all of them- have to be one retard.

>>3740874
>everyone who disagrees with me is a troll
>>3740875
>everyone who disagrees with me is a retard

You 2 aren't much different.

>>3740884
>everyone who disagrees with science on a science board is a troll
>everyone who disagrees with science on a science board is a retard
Sounds about right.

>>3740884
I was talking about you, not to you.

>denialist

That is such a troll buzzword. I'm sure the Catholic Church called rational people Genesis-Denialists too, at some point. You're no better.

>>3740884

If you have a better answer that isn't trolling or retardation, please give it. You obviously think you are smarter than scientists, and you have implied if not outright claimed that they are incapable of seeing "evidence" that "clearly suggests that there has been minimal global warming over the last few centuries", as in they're retarded. You have made your opinion pretty clear. So what are you doing on this board?

>>3740899
Actually they went with heathen and blasphemer but your imagined history is nice too

>>3740899
None of your arguments deal specifically with climate change. You are attacking (poorly) the method by which scientific theories are established as reputable. Do you have a similar qualms with evolution, and germ theory?

>>3740910

It's funny how you mentioned evolution and germ theory as examples because they are cases in point of why exactly science does not work based on consensus.

When evolution as a theory was first introduced it was viciously attacked and accepted by virtually nobody. Only until the mass of fossil evidence was presented did people slowly come around.

The same was true for germ theory. When it was first proposed nobody believed it, only after mountains of evidenced piled on did people finally start to believe in it.

The same is not true for climate change. It's basically just a media hype, everyone suddenly jumped on the bandwagon to "SAVE THE PLANET".

It's only the rational clear-thinking minority of true scientists who have been presenting evidence against climate change only to have their voices ignored.

>>3740906
Why is the term "denialist" any less of an epithetic buzzword than "heathen" or "blasphemer"?

>>3740899
Look denialist up in the dictionary. It does not mean "someone who does not believe". It means someone who distorts, ignores, and otherwise hides from facts. Contrast this to the definition of a skeptic; someone who demands they be given facts before they believe something.

>>3740919
>When evolution as a theory was first introduced it was viciously attacked and accepted by virtually nobody.

lol

it was presented at the same time by two of the like 20 working naturalists in the world, and it had been suggested by virtually every working naturalist for at least 150 years prior.

you suffer from an interesting poverty of understanding.

>>3740926
because it had direct literal meaning of one who denies. Whereas the literal meaning of blasphemer is one who speaks evil. The words have different meanings, that's what words do, so yes their use as epithets are not the same at all.

>>3740933
>Ignoring my point completely

Typical of a Global Cooling Denialist

>>3740935
>lying to support your 'point.'

you have no point.

>>3740937

>I lack reading comprehension

>>3740938
I agree.
now fuck off.

>>3740938
I'm glad you could admit that, even if it was all green for some reason. I'm sure they have literacy classes somewhere you could take.

>>3740940

You first

>>3740934
>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/blasphemer
>blas·pheme (bls-fm, blsfm)
>1. To speak of (God or a sacred entity) in an irreverent, impious manner.
>2. To revile; execrate.
So, you attack the people who deny what you see as facts with the word denialist, and Christians attacked those who spoke of God without piety with the word blasphemer, both using the words perfectly according to their definitions and still using them as epithetic buzzwords.

>>3740942

You can stop proving my point now

>>3740935

I love how sure of yourself you are and yet you can't back up anything you say or stand up to logical scrutiny.

Stay classy, triptroll.

>>3740950
I love how you ignore all my arguments.
Stay classy Cooling Denialist

>>3740944
If I see someone raping I call them a rapist.
If I see some denying I call them a denialist
The words are accurate descriptions of what the person is doing. You aren't even trying to argue you're not denying evidence; you're trying to start a semantic debate like a five year old.

> I just murdered someone, but don't call me a murderer because catholics call people they don't like blasphemers.

>>3740945
you still fail to bring a point to the table.

so far you've falsely stated that the consensus on evolution was incorrect at the time of introduction.

possibly correctly stated the incorrectness of the consensus regarding germ theory.

and conflated public opinion with scientific consensus on global warming while failing to notice what public opinion actually is on the matter.

If you're going somewhere with any of this it isn't really clear where.

>>3740959
Is it possible for me to cast magical fireballs with the thought powers of my brain? If you say no I'm calling you a denialist.

>>3740960

Yes and my point is that consensus is often wrong and is not how science moves forward

>>3740972
>consensus was wrong once
>therefor it's wrong now
Is that your point? Because that's not how logic works.

>>3740968
You have presented no evidence that you can perform such a task. A denialist is someone who denies evidence. There is nothing for me to deny.

>>3740959
I'm not the guy who started the semantic debate, I am personally agnostic on the issue of climate change (would apatheistic be a more appropriate way of saying I don't give a fuck?), but you're throwing around the word denialist and using it as an epithet for people who disagree with you, and then you have either the balls or just the irrationality to claim that what you're doing is meaningfully different than the use of a dictionary-perfect word as an epithet in the case of blasphemers simply because of your extreme aversion to Christianity.

>>3740975

Your argument is that because there is supposedly a consensus on global warming, that means global warming exists. This argument is flawed because consensus is often wrong.

>>3740977

>evidence for global warming

There isn't any.

>>3740980
>Your argument is that because there is supposedly a consensus on global warming, that means global warming exists.
No. My argument is that there is a great body of evidence for anthropogenic climate change, through which the scientific community has come to a consensus, and that means anthropogenic climate change exists.
Continue.

>>3740981
>a steady rise of global temperature
>not evidence of global warming
I bet the devil put that evidence there to trick us, right?

>>3740972
consensus is often wrong at the introduction of a new theory, if it wasn't the theory would be stated and accepted already.

your mistake is in classifying agw as a new theory. We've had plenty of time to examine it, and unless you've got some wildly convincing evidence in your pocket you merely come off as a crackpot in denying it.

not a big deal, /sci/ is full of your kind of crackpottery. that's why we have refereed journals, so we don't have to waste time considering the thoughts of the uninformed if we don't wish to.

>>3740984
>a great body of evidence

I wouldn't call skewed data a "great body of evidence"

>>3740989
which is why you're not a scientist.

>>3740987

>crackpottery

I think you best reserve that word for yourself, mr. Global Cooling Denialist.

>>3740989
Can you provide evidence that the data is skewed?

>>3740980
Your childish logic you use can be used to justify any anti-scientific belief. Arguments which can be used in support of the validity of creationism and homeopathy are not good arguments.

The scientific consensus is correct immensely more often than not. You are cherry picking and misrepresenting information to minimize the importance of the scientific consensus on global warming (AKA denialism).

>>3740991
>manipulating data to support your claim
>scientist

Nope, I think the word you're looking for is politician

>>3740994
of course she can.

all data are manipulated to reduce bias or control variables. to the uninitiated this is 'skewed.'

>>3740999
>fitting data
>manipulation
What.

>>3740995

>cherry picking and misrepresenting information

DOHOHOHOHO you took a page right out of the IPCC handbook.

If consensus is always right, then why does it change?

>>3741004

Don't pretend to be so shocked, it's your job after all mr IPCC Global Cooling Denialist

>>3741005
the consensus on warming hasn't changed since the 1950's, the consensus on agw hasn't changed since the 1980's.

you're about 30 years behind, science moves way faster than you can read it seems.

>>3741000
>reduce bias

I think you meant increase bias, in favor of the Global Warming hypothesis that is

>>3740994

No he can't, you shouldn't expect him to make an argument that has any basis, that would actually require thinking.

>>3741014
I was speaking of science in general. All scientists manipulate data, not just those particular geologists you have a problem with.

>>3741014
I know you think you're being a really good troll, but there's like 4 people arguing with you. That means you have to put in 4 times as much effort as any of us.
Think about that.