/sci/ - Science & Math

Political shitflinging belongs on >>>/pol/

>>6991190
Because they aren't trend-hoppers.

That's the only thing that makes them better than the other American leftist party.

>>6991206
This question is more suited to /sci/, because it would be pointless to post it on /pol/. I'm not trying to get a left vs. right thread, but rather trying to get ideas as to why it's conservatives, particularly those in middle age or older, who are most vocal about it being a hoax, or the research falsified or overplayed, despite them having little scientific education.

Lots of different reasons. Remember that many conservatives are creationist types who think that god wouldn't let us really mess things up, and the world is going to end soon anyway. (Plus scientists are a bunch of lying jews.) There was similar huge resistance among conservative types to the idea that a species could go extinct.

Many others are just edgelords who don't give a shit what happens beyond their own lives. Some will probably post in this thread.

And some are just "against" anything that liberals are "for." They'll complain about having environmentalism "shoved down their throats." Just pure tribalist nonsense.

>>6991235
>left vs right
Both parties are on the left.
>>6991237
Are you trying to be a walking stereotype?

>>6991245
>both parties are on the left
Don't be obtuse. Regardless of the layout of your preferred political spectrum or how many axes it has, you know exactly what I'm trying to say.

>>6991262
I'm stating that America is entirely center-left, one party simply supports militarism

>>6991272
Yes, and that is irrelevant for the purposes of this thread.

>>6991274
Attempting to disillusion the ignorant is irrelevant?

>>6991278
In a thread about global warming, yes.

>>6991245
>Both parties are on the left.
>>6991272
>I'm stating that America is entirely center-left

Are you retarded? How unawarely conservative do you have to be to perceive America as left at all? It's the most conservative developed country.

In America, conservative rhetoric has always had a bend on anti-intellectualism and distrust of science. It's pretty embarrassing.

>>6991292
Conservatives are left-wing.

Your remedial public high school education doesn't make you right, kiddo.

>>6991301
Trusting science is anti-intellectual, empiricism is a highly limited process and achieves little for its funding and lengthy existence.

>>6991305
Limited by what? What is an alternative?

>>6991206
>>/pol/
/pl/ is fucked up right now, blame moot.

>>6991292
Outside of America, left means right politically. Same as driving on the other side of the road.

Because conservatives have smaller brains, and as such are more comfortable in a simple, black-and-white world where "Every liberal = bad; everything conservative = good". Because Al Gore endorsed, they must deny it.

>>6991371
Hypocrisy sure is adorable.

Why are leftist morons so prone to fighting between each other.

>>6991386
Because the amount of socially acceptable branches of leftism is wider than the amount of socially acceptable branches of right wing ideology. Most people would frown at you for admitting to be a fascist or a monarchist, but for some reason have no problem with you admitting to be authoritarian socialist. Even as a leftist myself it's frustrating because it limits dialogue.

>>6991404
>socially acceptable
Society is horrible, it supports a murderous left over a motivated right.

>>6991360
Lel wtf are you talking about. Leftism has the same meaning everywhere. Maybe you're thinking about liberalism.

Also, America is a right wing country. Even the democrats are a right wing party. The only leftists in America are the greens.

They are making big money denying the work of people doing good science, Just like cigarettes and lead

People like Sarah Palin exist

>>6991338
>What is an alternative?

He won't answer you, but religion and tradition is what America's right goes by. Giving an anti-empirical argument was a QED to the post he was responding to.

I was concerned when I heard about global warming in college.

But after watching a 1 year time lapse of CO2 in the atmosphere over the globe, I'm confident plants can annually reduce enough CO2 before all life is wiped out. It might fuck up the planet and inconvenience us, but being apathetic about it, even by self moderation, is preferable to being a bleeding heart cunt.

>>6991404

Holy shit you need to leave your mom's basement. That's the most ivory tower post I've ever heard - America never really ended it's red scare; you're far better off showing up into any town as a good ol' boy than some faggy socialist.

>>6991432
It's incredibly obvious that half those women are natural brunettes that dye their hair.

>>6991426
>They are making big money denying the work of people doing bad science
fixed for truth.

the USSR had :
>full LGBTQPQUALMNOP rights
>full civil rights
>supported civil rights struggles all over the world (including the US)
>free education
>best educational facilities at the time
>cheap, plentiful food
>free entertainment for the working class
>free holidays for the working class
>free world class healthcare for the working class

Why aren't you a socialist /sci/

>>6991419
America is left-wing you moron
>>6991432
She's smarter than you
>>6991435
Why would I reply to somebody who doesn't even comprehend my point?
>>6991450
Because I'm not a dumb child.

People need to just stop saying the words "this thread belongs on /pol/". No thread belongs on /pol/ now. The board is dead. Moot assassinated it. We should all just act like it was deleted, because it's pretty much impossible to discuss anything there now.

>>6991451
>America is left-wing you moron

>>6991452
So take your shit to /b/. This is a science and math board. Politics is off-topic.

>>6991454
Non-argument

>>6991458
It doesn't need one. Your idiocy stands on its own.

>>6991436
Actually, being an apathetic emofag and feeling superior about it is even worse.

The levels go like this from good to worse:
1. Knowing there's something wrong and doing something about it.
2. Not knowing there's something wrong but not inhibiting the above people.
3. Knowing there's something wrong but just whining about it (your bleeding hearts).
4. Knowing there's something wrong and selfishly inhibiting any fix for private gain.
5. Being too stupid to believe scientists and instead believing political shills.
6. Being too stupid to believe scientists and feeling superior about it (this is you).
7. Being an asshole and doing everything no matter what in order to follow ideology.
8. Being an asshole and getting people to do everything no matter what for your own gain (Koch Bros.).

>>6991190
Why is everyone in this thread going full retard? Logic, math, and empirical evidence are literally the only means of presenting legitimate arguments or reasons for things. You can't make an argument against these forms of understanding the world or making decisions because it is these very methods that provide the basis for giving and asking for reasons in the first place. You can't refute logic and evidence, because logic and evidence are the very tools you use to refute things. I don't know why this is so hard for retards to accept.

When you argue against global warming these are the things your arguing against.

>>6991461
America might be right wing compared to the extreme minority of hyper-liberal countries like iceland or sweden, but compared to the vast majority of the planet (the middle east, african dictatorships, south america, eastern and southern europe, etc) we are extremely liberal. America for example has some of the most robust civil liberties and freedom of expression of anyplace on the planet.

>>6991461
Another non-argument, this time with more logical fallacies.
>>6991467
Empirical evidence is not evidence.

There is no logic or proper evidence related to science, science is rigourless horseshit.
>>6991468
America is as leftist as Sweden.

If America weren't right next to a third-world country, America would have a similar immigration policy to Sweden.

>>6991472
>America is as leftist as Sweden.
Stop anon, my sides can't take it.

>>6991475
Even leftists are embarrassed by other leftists.

>>6991472
Spoken like someone who either doesn't know anything about USA or Sweden.

>>6991451
She isn't even as smart as the chimpanzees she wrongly denies we share a common ancestor to. I don't want to toot my own horn but my science credentials blow hers out of the water

>>6991484
Tope projection
>>6991485
>science is le fact
Stop bragging about your 7th grade education, Redditor.

>>6991472
If you rule out empirical evidence, the only thing left is a priori knowledge, i.e. logic and math, i.e. something you don't understand. Either way, your still out of luck. The empirical facts are against you and you don't know how to use math and logic. It seems you've put yourself in a corner.

>>6991488
>something you don't understand.
More projection.

Why are you freshman so ignorant? Most of this board hasn't even taken a first-year analysis class.
>The empirical facts are against you
Empiricism may as well be an antonym for fact.

>>6991486
>science is not le fact
No, but it gets closer than other bullshit.

Science is never THE TRUTH (so capitalized), but it's True Enough and gets truer all the time.

>>6991472
How do you know empirical evidence isn't evidence.
You either know this from experience (that is, empirically), or you know this based purely on logic.
Since the first of these refutes your point, you can't use that as an argument.
Since you can't provide an a priori logical reason to refute empiricism, you can't use that as your argument.
Therefore, you're wrong.
Q.E.D.

>>6991490
Why is it closer? Muh feels?

Take your bullshit back to Reddit.
>its true enough
Nope.
>>6991493
Another non-argument presented as an argument, fantastic.

I wish you kiddies would leave already, I'm sick of your daily algebra I threads.

>>6991500
Actually, this is a sound argument. Point out the flaws. You only reject empiricism based on experience or based on a priori reasoning. Rejecting it on the basis of experience is ruled out, ex hypthesi, so all your left with is a priori reasoning, which can neither refute nor prove the efficacy of empiricism.

>>6991486
Yep. look at the 7th grade course I enrolled in

>>6991488
>>6991467
You can't use pure logic or science for moral problems. Most law is enforcing morality. ie murder is bad, rape is bad, stealing is bad, doing cocaine is bad. These are value judgements you can make with philosophy, but there is no "logical" or "scientific" reason to outlaw them, unless you start with certain moral axioms to work off of logically, but that's still philosophy.

>>6991465

Very true. I don't deny the science, I just see it as a reshaping of the matter making up life and lack of. Everyone alive today will be dead in 200 years, CO2 or not. Does it really matter enough to make me lose sleep? No.

I convince old people to opt for a a higher SEER unit or a higher efficiency furnace. Probably do more than you.

>>6991511
It's a sound argument because muh feels
>>6991512
Timestamp?

>>6991515
But that presupposes that morality doesn't come from experience. So far as I can tell we know what is right and wrong based on what we FEEL. If I didn't have ethical and aesthetic experiences, how would I know what is right and wrong?

>>6991500
>Why is it closer?
If it weren't, the shitty cheap laptop you're posting your shit from wouldn't work and I wouldn't have to read your shitty little opinions.

But I do, so science works.

Now you can try to philosophize/pray/meditate/seance/dance/sing/sacrifice long enough to elicit the same kind of multiuser communication that you have been doing with the power of science.

I'm sure bleeding words of bloody blood will appear on my wall and let me know how you feel.

And if they don't, science has worked better.

>>6991523
that's philosophy that you're describing. Thinking something is true because that's how you feel without specific logical rational to it is the opposite of scientific thinking, but it is what all government is fundamentally based upon.

>>6991532
>more projections
>more scientism
>more ignorance

More non-arguments

>>6991532
>replying to the guy who posts things like "you have no argument only say that because 'muh feels' over and over again"
It's time to stop posting.

>>6991540
I know there's no way he's ever gonna learn anything, but he's like that stupid youtube video with some Palinesque character parroting the same rote phrases over and over again.

I just can't stop pushing the button in him that causes the top of his head to fall off, showing the wind-up mechanism playing in there.

Environmental groups have a very long story of deceit and bullshit, it's understandable why some people would be skeptic about it

>>6991371
Making us liberals look this bad

>>6991520

>>6991556
>My name is Ozyscarecrow, shill of shills
>Look on my strawmans, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The blue and yotsuba boards stretch far away.

>>6991566

Yes.

>>6991548
>more projection
Leftists sure are top-notch euphori-debaters!
>>6991564
That's not a timestamp

>>6991458

You never gave an argument for a counterargument, but I would fucking love to hear why you think America veers to the left despite this going in the face of all modern political philosophy.

>>6991583
You must be the class tough guy.

>>6991450

The USSR had none of that. It was all lip service for a tiny ruling class to fuck 99% of the population.

>>6991468
Your confusing economic leftism with social liberalism. They're to different things. The political spectrum isn't divide in two, its divided in four. You can be a left-wing conservative, a right-wing conservative, a left-wing liberal, or a right-wing liberal. Examples in respective order: Nazism, Neocoservatism, Anarcho-communism (think Noam Chomsky, Karl Marx, etc), American Libertarians.

>>6991468

It's retarded to compare a developed country to the entire world. America is the most conservative developed country. Just because countries ruled by dictatorships or fascist theocracies or tribal political factions happen to be ruled by traditional values doesn't suddenly make America super liberal.

>>6991593
Why would I provide an argument when you have provided absolutely nothing?

All you have done is deny the truth, and throw around your hypocrisy and your ignorance.

>>6991599
Conservatives are leftist.
>>6991598
How wrong could you be?

>>6991245
>Both parties are on the left.
>>6991272
>America is entirely center-left
>>6991302
>Conservatives are left-wing.
>>6991360
>Outside of America, left means right politically.

How can people be this wrong? Do you just not pay attention to global politics at all?

Here is a hint: throughout most of the first world, socialized medicine, abortion, banning weapons, etc. aren't even controversial. America is the only country still struggling with issues that other countries chose liberal solutions to fucking years/decades ago.

The argument that America is leftist is a non-starter.

>>6991448

Sorry that climate science disagrees with you.

>>6991465
>biologically, tomato is a fruit, not a vegetable.

How is this wrong? Yeah, I know the botanical definition is different.

>>6991609
Is this actually entertaining to you? Are you actually getting pleasure from what your doing? Your either retarded, or the most boring troll in the world. Numerous people have presented you with arguments and each time you merely discount them by saying they're "wrong" or "fallacious" or what have you. How about you actually explain your position. If you don't explain your position, your views aren't even open for criticism, and hence you can't even really participate in a debate.

>>6991621

It's not. I'm not sure why it's included as an example.

Better examples would be people saying hybrids are worse for the environment or complaining about nuclear waste from nuclear power plants.

>>6991631

Right now /pol/ is purging. These people will die down eventually.

>>6991609
If Conservatives (in the American context) are left-wing, which political characteristics do you consider to be right wing?

>>6991612
>banning weapons
>liberal solution
North American "liberal", which is not the same as "liberal" (ie. pro-liberty) used elsewhere.

>>6991245

buh

American lefties are still to the right of where your average European right is at. Our main stream politics are overall more right-wing, regardless of party

of course there are always outliers, even in Europe, who are way off to the right, and I can tell you are one of the same, because you think American politics are too far to the left

>>6991612
Oh look, more ignorance.
>>6991631
Non-arguments are not arguments.

Please use those prime projection skills elsewhere, you'd be an amazing pitcher.
>>6991638
Non-argument.
>>6991642
Survival of the fittest, constant boundary-expansions, a strong government to keep a nation safe and economically secure.

Leftists want a nanny-government (conservatives want a small government that efficiently tucks them into bed every night), forced equality, and a push-over government and society.
>>6991644
America is as leftist as Europe, denial will not change this fact.

Grumpy old men holding non-political opinions does not alter the political party they represent, which is one and the same as the so called liberal party.

>>6991679
>Non-argument

>>6991679
>Survival of the fittest, constant boundary-expansions, a strong government to keep a nation safe and economically secure.
So, basically fascism? Does your political spectrum have multiple axes, or is it just left-right? Because I'm trying to figure out what the fuck kind of retarded spectrum you have in mind.

>>6991703
I go by the two-dimensional spectrum.

>So, basically fascism?
Is that meant to be an insult?

>>6991713
In what sense do you not go by a four-dimensional system? Do you literally not recognize a difference between social and economic issues? That is to say, do think the distinction between social and economic is artificial?

>>6991729
The difference exists in two dimensions.

>>6991235

They see it as a play by people who want the government to have greater power. They have less faith in government and feel that research institutions that rely on government for funding are biased, tending to overstate the severity of the problem in order to get more funding, or to back up political movements and politicians they favor.

>>6991451
>Because I'm not a dumb child.
The irony of this statement is that just about any child is smarter than you. You are just an ignorant adult and you will die before you've ever had an original thought.

>>6991747
Thats not true. If there exist two different components (social and economic) each exhibiting n parameters (in this case 2) then there are 2^n possible combinations. (In this case 2^2, which equals 4.) Informationally, in order to meaningfully represent the distinctions we must have exactly as many ways of symbolically discriminating as there are actual distinctions. A distinction of fact (or information) can only be expressed by a distinction of symbolism. If a symbolic system representing 4 distinct values is identical to a symbolic system that represents only 2 distinct values, then it is impossible to differentiate between the systems themselves, and hence the 4-valued system can only express what the 2-valued system expresses. Your logically obligated to either accept that there is no distinction between social and economic, or that there is a distinction and it corresponds to a discrepancy in your method of representation.

>>6991765
More projection, fantastic.

>>6991777
>projection

You've overused that word Mr. Pseudo-intellectual. You are using it against anonymous posters you know nothing about to reflect any criticism directed at you so you are never required to generate new thoughts or opinions and can continue to revel in your own perceived perfection.

You've denied empiricism, meaning you've denied reality. Get off the science board.

>>6991785
>any word i don't understand is pseudo-intellectual (i dont no this wrod either btw)

Science is for mongs who think their observations are relevant

>>6991793
Well good thing nobody believes your observations are relevant.

Also I understand what projection means quite well. Your insult was projection because I attacked the fact it is the fanciest word you know and that you just repeat it to yourself like a mantra.

>>6991800
>more projection
Leftists sure are wonderful at arguing!

>>6991802
Wow, your cognitive dissonance is on display across the internet. Stunning.

I say that you just repeat the word projection to protect your mind from criticism and your only response is to repeat the word again.

Hail other anonymous posters in this thread, feel glad you will never be quite so dull minded as this fellow!

>>6991802
>I'm retarded
Thank you, you've made that very clear.
/thread

>>6991809
Troll confirmed.

>>6991679
>non-argument
>this is a non-argument
>that right there is a non-argument
>guys it's non-argument
>non-argument

>>6991821
>>6991813
>>6991812
>>6991809
>>6991802
>>6991800
>>6991793
>>6991785
>>6991777

Just fuck already

>>6991824
I don't fuck children, sorry.

>>6991824
I'm not into orgies. You quoted at least 4 different people.

>>6991237
>(Plus scientists are a bunch of lying jews.)

yea fuck off

>>6991852
Anon, why didn't you read the post you were responding to before posting?

>>6991945
He has like a third grade reading comprehension at best. Take pitty on him, anon.

>>6991237

Seems like this post answered the question just fine, right before the thread was derailed by an incredibly stupid argument.

Antiscience bullshit goes on on both sides. For example, ask a left leaning person about nuclear power and the chances are they are against it.

There are other things like alternative medicine and antivaxxers, that the people that believe them to lean left.

>>6991759

This is why the recent Jonathan Gruber fiasco is so important. Here's a highly regarded researcher at a prominent institution who, for political reasons and his own funding and enrichment, went out there and said "Not X" when his own analysis clearly said "X".

>>6991564
>tfw my uni doesn't accept Imperial credits
feels bad man, living on an outlaw planet

>>6991190
Tomorrow going to be 15 below zero.
Last year one of coldest winter, most of great lakes frozen solid.
And you ask why we don't believe?

>>6993778

>Exceptions rule my life!

>>6993778

b8

Speaking for myself I think global warming is true but I call bullshit on alarmism and sensational predictions like Florida will be underwater by 2050.also a carbon tax,cap and trade would destroy our economy and retard the ability for developing countries to...develop.

>>6992955
Anti GMOs are the big antiscience for the left.

But that's not relevant to this thread in any way.

>>6991190
I did not read this thread but OP I can answer your question.

"Conservatives" main policy is ideologically to reduce taxes and government oversight. This is based on economic views that less regulation will allow businesses to thrive better, keeping more of their profits which they can then reinvest into the economy and make everything better. To them, the free market is the be all end all of social planning. If companies have the freedom to do whatever they want, society as a whole will prosper, because people know what's right and where to invest their money regardless of position or power.
Now, this is a big part of what America is, and these values are closely tied to the constitution. Although in modern times it's all political pissing contests that politicians participate in to garner votes to stay in power.

One other political fact of the US that worries me is that in some states politicians are talking about imposing a tax on hybrid or fuel efficient car owners. The reason for this is that oil/gas taxes go towards repairing roads, and people who drive electric cars should still have to pay because they don't use oil. This shows how republicans sometimes act like liberals in how they are ok with taxing in certain situations.

>>6993893

What I don't get is why roads aren't just a regular tax from everyone, like railroads.

Even if you don't use roads, you still benefit from them.

>>6993893
>"Conservatives" main policy is ideologically to reduce taxes and government oversight. This is based on economic views that less regulation will allow businesses to thrive better, keeping more of their profits which they can then reinvest into the economy and make everything better. To them, the free market is the be all end all of social planning. If companies have the freedom to do whatever they want, society as a whole will prosper, because people know what's right and where to invest their money regardless of position or power.
>Now, this is a big part of what America is, and these values are closely tied to the constitution.

This is the rhetoric they use, but in action they do nothing of the sort. Although I guess you could say the same of "liberals."

>>6991245
>both parties are on the left
>both parties are anticapitalist

what the fuck. the exact opposite is the truth.

>>6991190
people very often choose what information to believe based on what least challenges their assumption and values. if CC is real, it raises all sorts of uncomfortable problems about the infallibility of market economics and the utility of market intervention for 'conservatives.'

>>6993990
Not everyone benefits equally. If a non-driver benefits from roads, then a driver benefits in the same way, plus the additional benefits he gets directly from driving.

>>6993778
>One time I drank coffee and still went to sleep right afterwards, therefore coffee is not a stimulant.

I hope you realize you sound really ignorant and illogical. Clearly you don't understand much about statistics, probability, or logic. Just based of that one comment alone I can tell you weren't very good at math when you were in school. And I'm not trying trash talk you or anything, but in all honesty you just committed a really basic fallacy.

>120+ replies

>35 unique posters.

>>6993796
>Florida will be underwater by 2050

People who make predictions like that are obvious shills.

>>6991279
rekt

>>6991451
>I'm not a dumb child
>I'm not, I'm not, I'm not
Yes you are.

>>6991468
>hyper-liberal countries like iceland or sweden
ask me how I know you've never been to iceland or sweden

>>6991612
Not to be obtuse, but you're heavily oversimplifying numerous issues. In many ways, America is far more liberal than other countries in terms of political structure, law, and democratic processes, let alone economics. It doesn't make America a left wing bastion, but it is far more complex than you are making it out to be.

ITT: I love it when /pol/ comes to visit /sci/.
Both sides walk away thinking they "won" the "debate".

>>6991621
Biologically there is no such thing as a vegetable

Vegetable is not a biological term.

Is someone calls a tomato a vegetable, they are automatically not speaking biologically.

Anyone who doesn't realize this and interrupts the conversation is an idiot.

>>6994837
>Vegetable is not a biological term.
But it is a culinary term.
From a culinary perspective, it's not a fruit because it doesn't have the caloric density to match fruits for flavor or nutritional density.

>>6994851
And there is another one.
We are busy talking biology when suddenly.

>culinary, tomato is a vegetable, not a fruit

Get off stupid mountain

>>6991190
>(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST)
But fuck all was done about it and the thread is still up.

>>6994837
Yes there is you fucking moron

>>6994855
Kill yourself retard

in culinary terms vegetable = a type of plant produce that is used in a certain way, tomatoes are a type of vegetable

in botanical terms vegetable = a plant product obtained from the vegetative (= not seed bearing or reproductive) parts of the plant tissue, fruits are a little bit more complicated as they only refer to certain reproductive parts of the plant with the appropriate fleshy tissues versus like nuts or seed pods but they are also clearly defined

>>6994875
No; in botanical terms vegetable = plant
or any part of a plant.

>>6991450
>Had
Thats why

>>6994884
I think mushrooms would be considered vegetables too. They're not even plants.

>>6994884
BUT THAT IS WRONG you fucking retard.

It is not any part of a plant, it is specifically non reproductive parts of a plant.

The stem could be a vegetable, the leaves could be a vegetable, the rhizome could be a vegetable, even a branch could be a vegetable.

A seed pod or a flower or a fleshy piece of tissue containing seeds or spores or something similar is never considered a vegetable, in botanical terms.

>>6995048
probably trolling but yes, mushrooms are considered a vegetable in culinary terms, beans are also considered a carb and not a vegetable really culinary terminology is fucking retarded and usually in conflict with botanical terminology.

>user was warned for this post
so janitors actually exist?

>>6994571

>Florida will be underwater by 2050

That's ridiculous. It will probably be underwater by 2030.

http://www.npr.org/2014/10/10/355051011/miami-uses-pumps-to-battle-flooding-from-sea-level-rise

>>6995080
>That's ridiculous. It will probably be underwater by 2030.
lol ok buddy

>>6991771
m8, he said 2D, that means a 4 axis plane. Sole right left would be 1D

>>6991618
>climate science
top lel

You mean climate "fuck my data from behind" "and invent some more" "and screw with the damned time series that don't agree with my snake oil" "and pay Al Gore that much" "and fix all studies and peer reviews done by beer friends and gay activists" non-science?

>>6994372
>. Clearly you don't understand much about >statistics.
You have to have accurate records,going back far back in time,to have correct statistics and predictable.which you don't.
So this is just the flavor of the week pseudo ,pop science,driven by al Gore type politicians.(who also claims he invented the internet,and the book love story was written about him).
The best logic, is by preponderance of evidence.
Reality ,what you see with your own eyes ,is direct evidence.
He is a quote from John Coleman founder of weather channel." Challenged on the assertion that “97 percent of climate scientists” are in agreement on the issue, Coleman charged that the figure was “manipulated.”

Since the government only funds scientists who put out results “supporting the global warming hypothesis,” he claimed, “they don’t have any choice.”

“If you’re going to get the money, you’ve got to support their position. Therefore 97 percent of the scientific reports published support global warming. Why? Because those are the ones the government pays for and that’s where the money is.”

>>6991771
wat

>>6991190
Yes

>>6994372
>>6994372
>. Clearly you don't understand much about >statistics.
You have to have accurate records,going back far back in time,to have correct statistics and predictable.which you don't.
So this is just the flavor of the week pseudo ,pop science,driven by al Gore type politicians.(who also claims he invented the internet,and the book love story was written about him).
The best logic, is by preponderance of evidence.
Reality ,what you see with your own eyes ,is direct evidence.
He is a quote from John Coleman founder of weather channel." Challenged on the assertion that “97 percent of climate scientists” are in agreement on the issue, Coleman charged that the figure was “manipulated.”

Since the government only funds scientists who put out results “supporting the global warming hypothesis,” he claimed, “they don’t have any choice.”

“If you’re going to get the money, you’ve got to support their position. Therefore 97 percent of the scientific reports published support global warming. Why? Because those are the ones the government pays for and that’s where the money is.”

Most of them seem to think that the US government knows it is false, as do climate scientists, but wants to manipulate the public into believing it is true for the sake of doing it as part of their schemes toward achieving total control, or because they are owned by green special interests.

>>6995307
>You have to have accurate records,going back far back in time,to have correct statistics and predictable.which you don't.
stop embarrassing yourself

>>6995345
>wow it's cold outside.
The longest continuous temperature record is the Hadley Centre's Central England Temperature series. It starts around 1850.

Weather balloon temperature measurements become useable by about 1958.

Satellite measurements had started by 1980.

The longest useful record of carbon dioxide concentrations is from Mauna Loa, Hawaii, and was started by Charles Keeling in about 1958.

Observations of sunspots and maritime records go back further.

The longest high-precision paleoclimate record are the EPICA ice cores. They give us an idea of carbon dioxide levels and temperature levels going back about 600,000 years.

>>6995307
Let me ask you, what exactly is your educational background? Its seems rather obvious that you didn't major in any of the sciences, but perhaps I'm wrong.

>>6995454
>>6994372
>And I'm not trying trash talk you or anything,
Maximum amusement

>>6995454
>>6994372
>And I'm not trying trash talk you or anything,
Maximum amusement

Because they conflate science with a political debate.

>>6991190

Because they're fucking ignorant.

No, really, that's the bottom like with those people.

>>6995307
>He is a quote from John Coleman founder of weather channel.

Wow, what an authority. That certainly debunks the multiple synthesis reports and poles that repeatedly confirm that the vast majority of climate research supports significant anthropomorphic global warming.

>>6991190
/pol/ please leave

>american parties are leftist
>america is very liberal
only people that don't understand politics would say that.
US parties are both right wing, statism does not define left or right, the US is economically liberal, not politically/socially....
guess the brainwashing and the red scare has been fruitful and will keep being so.
that opinion is either low-level bait, or stormfront-like edgyness

>>6991190
regarding this question: I agree with >>6991237 . there are many factors: ignorance, private interests, social manipulation, and so on.
stopped reading the thread.

>>6995307
Scientists are immune to financial pressures. Everyone knows that. They thirst for knowledge, not grant money.

Why can't we talk about this rationally /sci/? Why do you have to talk about politics instead?

>>6996121
Because politics is the only reason people can't believe that global warming is real.

No other scientific discipline tells us as plainly that the capitalist system of the last hundred years is wrecking us. And you know how people react when their holy effigies are desecrated like that.

Especially since the people most stuck on capitalist values are also the ones with the most religious values and who are more affected by emotion than facts.

No matter the how hard the scientific proof, they will not believe a word you say because they can't.

>>6996121

How the fuck wouldn't we? The question is inherently political.

>>6996145
>Because politics is the only reason people can't believe that global warming is real.
>reasons
Capitalism
Merikkkans
Republicans
Cow farts
UN synthesis reports(great source)

Can't just be a geological time between ice ages.

>>6995410
you can use Google?!

>>6997339
Pro tip: never type "Google" into Google.

>>6997444
why not?

>>6997300
>fastest temperature growth on record
>Doesn't line up with the milankovitch cycles whatsoever, as you're claiming.
>Is completely correlated with the increase in carbon emissions in the last century

No. The evidence is clear. This isn't just the natural warming of the Earth.

>>6991190
>politicians
>controlled by corporations
>industry fucks with climate
>corporations don't want industry to be compromised for the sake of climate
>politicians don't do what corporations don't want done

It's actually really fucking simple, OP.

>>6997961
I smell your fear.
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=8_iayEsW89Y

>>6993990
When they made that tax they didn't imagine a world where drivers weren't buying gas.
What they should do is put a tax on all cars, or make it part of the vehicle registration.

>>6997444
protip: type "Zerg Rush" into google.

>>6994001
Both party's are the same, equally worthless and corrupt.

>stopping the ice age cycle
>bad

Global Warming is a good thing unless you hate humanity.

>>6998485
>thinks that a few thousand years of warming will stop the ice age cycle
That's cute.