/sci/ - Science & Math

>theconsensusproject
>.com
>.com as in commercial

>We are the cause
>Not oil lobbies and flight companies

>>6689950
Are you implying that democracy is better than science?

>>6690000
Since the majority of people are idiots, yes.

>>6689959
>We are the cause
>We
Whom do you mean by "we", Tribesman?

>>6690000
Are you implying that scientific consensus is a democratic process?

>>6690024
>implying it isn't

>>6689950
Yes. Yes they do.

>>6689950
>How can there still be climate change deniers?
Apparently because they can still produce arguments worthy of publishing in those peer-reviewed journals which haven't been taken over by activists.

>Do they think they're smarter than the vast majority of scientists?
Look at your image. It doesn't claim anything about the "vast majority of scientists". It just says that 30 times more papers get published saying humans are causing global warming, than ones saying the opposite.

Anyway, it's a very dishonest claim. They counted any paper that suggested that mankind's activity had some effect that would tend to increase the global temperature, as part of a consensus that "Global warming is happening -- and we are the cause."

Paper says mankind is releasing CO2, CO2 increases global temperature: counts as confirmation.
Paper says mankind is releasing particulates, particulates reduce global temperature: does not count as refutation.

Extremely dishonest methodology. There are actually far fewer papers than counted which actually claim to have reached the conclusion that the global temperature is increasing, and mankind is the primary cause. And there are a significant number of papers claiming the opposite on one point or the other (i.e. that natural variation is causing most of the observed temperature increase, or casting doubt on the claim that we're in a warming trend). There is debate, not consensus.

The vast majority of climate papers, of course, are about much narrower topics, and don't take a position on global warming in general. Most climate scientists, whatever their political leanings or personal opinions, don't actually professionally study the larger question of whether global warming is taking place and caused by mankind, and take their work too seriously to have a professional opinion on something that isn't the subject of their own research.

>>6690053
...the figure also ignores those papers which examine the question of whether global warming exists and man is causing it, and conclude that this is uncertain.

These should count against claims of "consensus", but they're treated as irrelevant papers, as if "consensus" means those who strongly agree greatly outnumber those who strongly disagree, rather than also greatly outnumbering those who are doubtful or neutral.

>>6690053
>There is debate, not consensus.
You're trying to use semantics to undermine years of research that cast doubt on your position, well played.

You'll find that all of those papers published in peer reviewed journals that deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change are written by researchers whose funding is reliant on them being biased and not objective.

>>6689950

OP's pic is lame. What exactly does "And we are the cause" mean? The only cause? The primary cause? A cause? It's no wonder "deniers" deny when the case is presented so badly.

Because Greenies told us the Wales would be underwater by now.

>>6690067
as opposed to the other side? boy are you naive.

>>6690053
>It doesn't claim anything about the "vast majority of scientists".
It doesn't need to. You wouldn't ask a geologist to have an expert opinion on biophysics.

The only opinions which are relevant are those of the experts on the subject.

Because MUH CONSPIRACY BY DUH OIL CUMPANEES and DA GOVNMENT and LE ILLOOMINATIJOOSLIZARDSALIUMS!

GUYS GUYS ITDS HADDENING!!!!!!!

>>6690218
...and yet "the vast majority of scientists" is what OP claimed.

The problem with "a consensus of experts" (aside from whether such a thing really exists) is that the field may be trash. There's a consensus among homeopaths and career homeopathy researchers that homeopathy works.

A consensus of scientists, on the other hand, implies that the established mainstream of a field is not only in agreement amongst themselves, but is respected as genuine experts practicing high-quality science by the scientific community, with practical unanimity.

The reason we normally defer to experts in practical matters is that they have a long track record of being right, where laymen get it wrong. MDs may not be right every time about everything, but when they say you need a course of antibiotics, it's easy to see that the people who follow that advice tend to have better outcomes than the people who ignore it. But for the guys making policy recommendations based on predictions of global climate decades into the future, this is their first kick at the can, and they can't even explain the case for their conclusion so a layman can understand it, you have to become an expert yourself to evaluate the argument.

The kind of expert without a track record of being right, whose claim of expertise comes from having studied an issue harder than most and being in agreement with others who have similarly studied the issue, should be looked upon with considerable skepticism. Too many such experts have been wrong in the past.

>>6689950
Yup

>>6690289
>Implying Aristotle was a scientist.
gr8 b8 m8

>>6690249
>The kind of expert without a track record of being right, whose claim of expertise comes from having studied an issue harder than most and being in agreement with others who have similarly studied the issue, should be looked upon with considerable skepticism. Too many such experts have been wrong in the past.

Holeee Fucking Shit

>>6689950
>How can there still be climate change deniers?
Climate change is happening, it is a consensus. You can't argue with the data.
What 97% agree on is that it was caused by humans, while the other 3% think it may be due to something else.

>Do they think they're smarter than the vast majority of scientists?
Those who deny climate change are not scientist. They are ill informed common folks or people who have something to gain in spreading those lies.

>>6690000
>>6690034
>implying peer-review is not the scientific method

/thread

>appeals to authority and popularity all in one

At least it's efficient, I suppose.

>>6690875
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy
Appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy

However, Appeal to expert consensus is not a logical fallacy. In fact, it is most often the appropriate course of action.

>>6690873
>Climate change is happening, it is a consensus. You can't argue with the data

Then don't argue.

>>6690887
But appeal to expert concensus is literally the other two fallacies combined

The best course of action is to look at all the data and draw a conclusion based on those, not on what people say.

>are the cause

>are a cause

no distinction made
dishonesty, shameful

>>6690891
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

Those articles are protected for a reason. Read them, educate yourself and stop shitposting. A graph is meaningless without a link to the paper it belongs to.

Hasn't there been no warming over the last 10-20 yes?

>>6690000
Nice quads.

>>6689950
The vast majority of scientists are global warming deniers becuase there is no such thing.

>>6690906
The paper is a sample of specifically papers that were submitted about a human cause for global warming. The statistic basically says of those who submitted a paper about human caused global warming 97% of those whom submitted the papers endorsed a personally held belief that to at least a limited extent humans had an impact on global warming.

The info graphic is basically wordgames.

>>6690891

Lol, the blue trendline, and it has an arrow at the end - adorable.

>not understanding logical fallacies

All logical fallacies do is tell you are what “isn’t inherently correlated to truth”.
Authority isn’t inherently correlated to truth.
Popularity isn’t inherently correlated to truth.
And yes, popular authority isn’t inherently correlated to truth.

However, this doesn’t mean arguments made from authority, popularity, or popular authority could not be true at the end. So even with the logical fallacies taken into consideration, you still need to find a “method” that is going to bring you closest to the “truth”. Following? The logical fallacies don’t help you do this.

> the best course of action is to look at the data and draw your one conclusions

No. That is retarded nonsense. You’re saying your "judgment" on a technical matter should be as valid as an “expert” opinion? This is demonstrably false. The best course of action ends up being to use expert consensus. This doesn’t mean it is “sure to be true”, it just means that it is “closest path we have to the truth”. And you could even further dissect the expert consensus, trying to eliminate biases and things like that, if you were so inclined.

>>6690895
>don't listen to experts

Are you fucking retarded? Of course you listen to experts. You do every day you dolt!

You telling me you don't do to the doctor? lawyer? car mechanics? etc? Stop acting like a retard.

>>6690895
>everyone is qualified to draw their conclusion on very technical matters

>>6690952
this

>>6690895
Never go full retard.

>>6689950
no, they think, correctly, that it is in their best interest to keep climate change under wraps. As in there is a lot of money riding on fossil fuels and their continued consumption, money that goes away if climate change is addressed properly.

Here is the REAL reason people deny climate change.

Most of these people work blue collar jobs and drive big gas guzzling trucks.

Their whole lives they are surrounded by fossil fuel consumption.

And now you got these liberal politicians telling them that what they're doing is destroying the earth.

Well, fuuuuuck you Al Gore. I don't think what I'm doing is all that bad. And fuuuuck your scientific consensus.

>>6691058
This is a silly argument-unless you are apart of a self-sustainable tribe a forest, every onr has contributed fairly evenly. Do you drive? Do you purchase your food at a grocery, which was transported bu truck? Do you buy material goods you had no part in producing? Do you not live near a dam, a solar or wind farm? Congratulations, you too are a culprit for emissions. So this holier-than-thou approach at shaming is fallacious, as just about everu single Westerner has and continues to add emissions, directly or by proxy.

>>6691162

Y

Your response has nothing to do with his post what so ever. Get off sci. Get off the drugs. Than when you do that, if you can not be a retard, than you can come back and post.

>>6691167
butthurt samefag who just got self-conscious about the fact that he's slowly destroying the environment by shitposting on /sci/ detected

>>6689950
>climate change deniers

And when they choose to call them 'denialistists' will you parrot that too?

>>6691180
It's shorthand for "human induced climate change" let's not argue semantics like highschool philosophers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA7tfz3k_9A

>>6691167
You stereotype and typecast people who contribute to emissions while wilfully omitting your own? You have inflicted as much damage as I have, as most everyone on 4chan. And this strikes you as inflammatory?

Of course climate change exists. It's called the four seasons.

Due in no small part to a poorly educated public, an individualist political ideology, and a massive, corporate funded misinformation campaign.

>>6690308
Yeah, Aristotle could actually think; modern scientists just fiddle about with equations.

>>6691183
>semantics

Semantics .. is the study of meaning. It focuses on the relation between signifiers, like words, phrases, signs, and symbols, and what they stand for, their denotation. Linguistic semantics is the study of meaning that is used for understanding human expression through language.

>let's not argue meaning

>>6691195
lol okay you can take that train of thought to the next discussion on the topic of atmospheric CO2 and methane.

>>6689950
Because the conclusion behind every global warming/climate change campaign is exactly the same - hand over your money. Whether it's new or increased taxes, higher prices, sanctions etc... basically the Government gets more money out of your pocket.

Also, the vast majority of greenhouse gases is water vapour, which is painfully obvious, as clear nights are far colder than cloudy ones. Besides, until China, India, Russia, USA and so on curb their carbon output, I don't see why I should be forced to wash, crush and recycle my milk bottles or pay absurd amounts of money just to drive about in central London.

>>6691235
>as clear nights are far colder than cloudy ones.

>>6691237
Do you even observe the environment around you?

>>6689950
Wait... Is this saying that 97% of global warning approver approve of gloable warning?

>>6690020
Glad to know that your opinions are better than everyone elses.

>>6691235
recycling your milk bottles is not about global warming you selfish turd

It is happening but we aren't the cause. At least not the primary one.

>>6689950
How can there still be geocentrism deniers? Do they think they're smarter than the vast majority of scientists?

>>6691162
Oh my god, this is completely not related to what I was really trying to say.

These people aren't using a holier than thou approach. They are saying that our emissions as humanity is having no effect. These people hate the idea that what they're doing will damage future generation's ability to thrive, and so they are in denial about it.

>>6691380
1/10 because I like Galileo

>>6691485
But what I do not understand is, feasibly speaking, how do we buck the trend? Enforcing better standards in efficiency for cars and trucks, in addition to higher sustenance on green energy is a good step in the right direction, but let's be honest- that's skimming of the top, in terms of actual productivity in combating it, especially considering how China and India can open a new coal, and not considering the incredible growth in population and energy dependence of all developed and developing nations-powered plant every week with no ramifications on their part. Short of another Carrington Event or catastrophic EMP, what is there to be done that isn't merely buying time?

http://scaruffi.com/news/opin1012.html

The rightmost column.

>>6691361
Wrong.

>>6691500
Honestly the only thing we can do is convert all coal and gas power plants to nuclear asap and force everyone to buy electric cars. This obviously isn't physically feasible so the only other thing to do is move inland so your children won't be affected by what's going to happen.

>>6691553
I suggest you become adroit at outdoorsman skills as well
>it's a fun and fulfilling set of skills to have

>>6689950
Because oil is a gift from God and it cant bring us harm because God is good.

>>6691525
>http://scaruffi.com/news/opin1012.html

Damn, Scaruffi is pretty brilliant.

>>6691642
checkmate athiest

>>6689950
Because there is an IQ requirement to understand evidence and apply reason. Many people fall short of this requirement.

>>6691779
Yeah, people like you
Rekt

>>6691779
>Implying you require high pattern recognition and spatial reasoning to understand evidence.
You be tippin' yo fedora with full rush, yo.

>>6689950

What climate change?

>>6691965
b8/8

>>6691974
bait over eight?
bait divided by eight?
bait by eight?

>>6691965
>bait over eight?
creators.com over its microcephalic head

>>6691983
b8 out of 8 m8!

Astrophysicist Piers Corbyn on "The Myth of Man-Made Global Warming"

Piers Corbyn (www.weatheraction.com) has received international acclaim for the accuracy of his long-range climate forecasts based on his Solar-Lunar-Action-Technique (SLAT). Although we hear daily of a scientific consensus to the contrary, what does Piers make of mankind's alleged role in affecting the climate on Earth?

Satellite data shows clearly that for the last ten years temperatures have been falling.

Carbon dioxide does not drive climate. Rather, temperature changes in the oceans, in the long run, drive carbon dioxide levels.

There is no actual evidence for the CO2 theory. Termites emit ten times more CO2 than man. The idea that termites, or cows, or whatever you have, are going to hold still while man does his thing is completely absurd. The idea that man controls CO2 is actually delusional nonsense.

Climate has changed for millions of years. The only thing that's different now is that man is claiming he's doing it.

What drives our climate? Solar activity.

When you've got periods of low solar activity, like now, two things happen. One thing is that the jet stream on average goes farther south, and the other is that it swings more wildly north to south. And that means we get much bigger extremes in temperature.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZLkN8F0Q14

>>6692159
This anon gets it. Bro fist.

>>6692159

>>6692159
>follow link
>"electric universe"
>close window

>>6690931
So it's just like every other activism group exploring the depths of disingenuousness when citing references.

>>6692159
>The idea that man burns multiple gigatons of fossil fuel is actually delusional nonsense.

>>6689950
It is true that the climate changes over the Earth's history, but the question is how much of this change in climate can actually be attributed to human beings. I doubt the CO2 we pump into the atmosphere is the sole reason for global warming. Sometimes the Earth warms up every couple of hundred and thousand years due to how to sun behaves. I doubt climate change is solely caused by humans, although humans do play a role in a climate change to a certain extent.

>>6690957

Not that anon, but I pretty much don't listen to experts. Seen plenty of situations where they are simply full of shit.

Doctors are pill pushing shit heads and are fat asses with no idea about how to be healthy (yep, life experience confirms it). If I could get medical supplies easily, I would even do my own surgeries for small lacerations and the like instead of blowing hundreds of dollars of insurance money at some urgent care ward. Fuck, surgeons are glorified technicians. The only medical professions I respect are researchers.

Lawyers are lying sacks of shit too. Got some stories regarding that when doing jury duty.

Car mechanics? They don't know your car as well as you do. When I had a shitty car, I did more work on it than any mechanic. It's called reading the fucking manual, and now that we have the internet, you can find out how to do almost anything with it.

The reason you go to a mechanic is ease and convenience, which is the same reason you hire any "expert" to do stuff for you. Just because they make their living doing this crap doesn't mean they're better at it than you.

Listen, I know you're a fucking shit tier low IQ pleb, but try to understand that "experts" are mostly shit and deference to experts (this ties into typical female behavior too) is a big reason the world blows right now.

>>6692513

Agree, on the caveat that said person has at least 120 IQ and actually is an autodidact. Most people however are dumb plebs which will just listen to whatever their masters tell them, which is why 200 years ago most people were essentially surfs or slaves (to say nothing of women who are born slaves almost to a woman).

>>6689950
>climate change deniers
>deniers.

Don't ever use the word "denier"

It's a Jew tactic.

How can there still be Jesus deniers?

How can there still be freedom deniers?

How can there still be holocaust propoganda deniers?

How can there still be /pol/ deniers on /sci/.

Just look at this post
>>6692529

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" Upton Sinclair

>>6692532
I'm working with people who launched biz coin five months ago.
A few days a go somebody launched our coin on bitcoin talk,the day we reached first place on the ecoin exchange.

https://twitter.com/bizcoinofficial
http://www.reddit.com/r/bizcoinofficial
What does the "official" part say to you?

>>>/biz/438902

>>6692535

Wait, are you talking about the oil industry or scientists that will lose their reputation and funding if they aren't on board with man-made climate change?

>>6692550
So the creator of bizcoin is an anti semite. You won;t mind then if they know about this?

>>6692552

You sound like a real Jew with that passive-aggressive language.

>>6692552
what are you talking about.

I'm just saying how a single word can manipulate things,and we need to be careful of how we label things.

>>6692554
> passive-aggressive language.

>>6692554
>Create scamcoin

>mad i'm a jew

I think you maybe have a bad case of projection there son