/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12156604]

Imagine believing in (((climate change))) and funnelling trillions of dollars against an imaginary enemy. Globalists love it.

[Anonymous No.12156607]

>>12156604

[Anonymous No.12156612]

>>12156604
>Phoneposter
>/pol/dditor
You have to go back.

[Anonymous No.12156614]

>>12156607
Stfu retard

Climate change is a hoax and you know it

[Anonymous No.12156617]

>>12156612
CO2 has a very small greenhouse effect compared to for example water vapour

OMFG WATER VAPOUR IS RUINING THE PLANET


AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[Anonymous No.12156628]

>>12156614
>>12156617
>Climategate
>water vapour
Imagine being this retarded

[Anonymous No.12156632]

I’ve noticed that whenever anyone makes a reference to jews in their post I immediately and subconsciously trash everything they say. it’s more of a red flag for low intelligence than someone asking for your astrological sign at this point.

Why haven’t they found a way to permaban all the neonazi shills here? This is a fucking science board. Having political extremists on a science board is like having creationists.

[Anonymous No.12156635]

>>12156632
Ok so why are climate change believers allowed on here

Bc they believe in a retarded religion and are not scientific

Ban the climate hoax believers

[Anonymous No.12156637]

>>12156632
I almost prefer the creationists

[Anonymous No.12156639]

>>12156628
Nice arguments nigger

[Anonymous No.12156658]

>>12156604
ftfy

[Anonymous No.12156659]

>>12156637
I do prefer creationists over /pol/tards. They’re equally stupid but every /pol/tard has narcissistic personality disorder too which makes them worse to have around than just normal stupidity.

[Anonymous No.12156670]

>>12156617
>CO2 has a very small greenhouse effect compared to for example water vapour
Yes, but that's irrelevant in determining what caused the change. Water vapor concentration is determined by temperature. So it's not a primary cause of temperature changes, it's part of a feedback loop. If water vapor increases you still have to explain what caused it to increase.

[Anonymous No.12156686]

>>12156635
It's amazing how similar you retarded deniers are to creationists. Creationists also love to call well-evidenced scientific facts a "religion" while failing to recognize that their own position is completely dogma driven.

[Anonymous No.12156712]

>>12156628
Climate gate happened but the important part was not the emails, it was something most people missed.

The IOP retracted their first statement due to media pressure. Initially the IOP made a serious statement saying the emails were revealing of an anti-scientific attitude and serious questions would have to be asked about the validity of results from certain science groups in climate modelling.

The 'new' IOP statement basically read 'their methods are wrong but that doesn't mean their results are'.

[Anonymous No.12156731]

>>12156712
I must have slipped in from the timeline where that never happened

[Anonymous No.12156743]

>>12156659
I dunno, irreducible complexity and "I'm not related to a monkey" gets tiresome pretty quickly. The /pol/tards all follow the narrative of whatever their favorite blog is so you get more variety.

[Anonymous No.12156753]

>>12156604
This is the best I'm willing to do
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo

[Anonymous No.12156781]

>>12156658
This picture does not show scientists in a good light too.

[Anonymous No.12156823]

>>12156639
You didn't make any arguments either you mongoloid. You have the understanding of climate change that a 12 year old who is tought at school about the subject has.
Question: how many scientific articles (not some obscure blogger's schizopost) on the topic have you ever read?

[Anonymous No.12157130]

The climate change model has too many variable to be accurate. For instance solar seasons.

[Anonymous No.12157645]

>>12157130
I guess that it's just a coincidence that predictions from decades ago ended up matching the actual data measured.

[Anonymous No.12157696]

>>12156781
How so?

[Anonymous No.12157704]

>>12157130
>The climate change model has too many variable to be accurate.
Which one?

>For instance solar seasons.
The sun's variation is way too small to explain current warming.

[Anonymous No.12157752]

>>12157696
Let's see
>1989 global warming and rising sea levels will wipe entire nations off the map (if not reversed) by 2000!
It's 2020 now. Was it reversed by 2000? If not, then where are the wipings? In 2200?

[Anonymous No.12157782]

Daily reminder that climate change and race threads get saged and hidden

[Anonymous No.12157834]

>>12156658
AOC just said we only have 12 years until doomsday and she got a round of applause for it. Armageddon seems to be a common feature of a lot of religions

[Anonymous No.12157853]

Retards think predicting complex systems is as easy as observing them and saying “oh that’ll just continue”

The smartest men on the planet can’t even figure out the course of the stock market, they get rich due to manipulation

[Anonymous No.12157950]

Global warming can't be that big of an emergency. Since there are things the greens won't allow, and unrelated things the socialists keep trying to cram in with environmental policy

[Anonymous No.12157960]

>>12157834
no. 12 years before its irreversible, not doomsday.

[Anonymous No.12157961]

>>12157950

And since coastal liberals aren’t in any real rush to abandon the coasts eh

[Anonymous No.12157965]

>>12157961
You don't see cities building sea walls and locks. To protect against 3m sea rises.

[Anonymous No.12158185]

>>12157752
>It's 2020 now
Yes, and the article that statement comes from was describing the effects of climate change in 2100. You could have googled this but instead you defended something without knowing anything about it.

[Anonymous No.12158189]

>>12157834
Ah yes that famous scientist AOC.

[Anonymous No.12158196]

>>12157853
>Retards think predicting complex systems is as easy as observing them and saying “oh that’ll just continue”
if you think that's how climatology works then you're describing yourself.

>The smartest men on the planet can’t even figure out the course of the stock market
And you know the climate is like the stock market because their predictions have failed? Or are you just assuming it is?

[Anonymous No.12158350]

>>12158185
So not in in 2200, but in 2100? What a horror, that changes everything.

[Anonymous No.12158403]

>>12156632
I guess it’s the price of anonymity and the discourse on this board being open minded. I don’t like it but it challenges the fundamentals of my beliefs. Sometimes we live in such a theoretical headspace that when the laymen wants a “scientist” to explain climate change, they have no adequate response because they’ve been trying to solve complex topology problems applied to geospatial theories for so long that they don’t know how to approach explaining basic stuff.

[Anonymous No.12158437]

>>12156659
Is /pol/ in the room with you right now?>>12156632

[Anonymous No.12158458]

>>12158189
Why are all Americans liars?

[Anonymous No.12158464]

>>12158437

i wonder who could be behind this post

[Anonymous No.12158467]

>>12156659

i wonder (((who))) could be behind this post

[Anonymous No.12158489]

>>12158464
>nazi dogwhistle
This kind of bigotry is UNWELCOME on this board. MODS!

[Anonymous No.12158497]

>>12158489
The term dogwhistle is itself a dogwhistle

[Anonymous No.12158668]

>>12156604
you are literally to stupid to live.
A pity you are dragging the rest of us down with you

[Anonymous No.12158669]

>>12156604
cc is a real non-problem.

[Anonymous No.12158723]

>>12156604
>funnelling trillions of dollars against an imaginary enemy
What you mean like how the US wages war in the Middle East?

[Anonymous No.12158738]

>>12158669
This is why Trump wants to buy Greenland and not burn any bridges with Putin.

[Anonymous No.12158789]

>>12158403
So science is hard, therefore brainlets will have to retort to blaming jews?

[Anonymous No.12158820]

>>12156670
you are already way over their heads

[Anonymous No.12159063]

>>12156604
Let's see
>group of educated climate scientists with decades of research
>blue collar manufacturing employee that just wants to roll coal in his 350 Cummings and thinks just because it gets cold in the winter climate isn't changing

[Anonymous No.12159087]

>>12156731
Then you know nothing about the event outside what media told you, did no real investigation, and shouldn't talk about it.

[Anonymous No.12159096]

>>12156731
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm

here is the original.

[Anonymous No.12159102]

>>12156731
A quite nice summary here
https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2010/02/uncorrected-evidence-39/
and here
https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2009/12/climategate-historys-message/

[Anonymous No.12159118]

>>12156614
Why are you here?

You suck mac and cheese washed down with mountain dew on a daily basis and you want to comment on /sci/?

Try /b/ and go away retarded fat fuk.

[Anonymous No.12159133]

>>12158789
>the whole picture is about Jews

[Anonymous No.12159142]

>>12159096
This is mostly complaining about data sharing. It was corrected because the data sharing policies they referred to didn't actually exist. And your assessment of the revised statement is incorrect.

[Anonymous No.12159154]

>>12158350
So how is the image showing scientists in a bad light again?

[Anonymous No.12159200]

>>12156632
>>12156637
>>12156659
go back to r/science you niggerfaggot
niggerfaggotniggerfaggotniggerfaggotniggerfaggotniggerfaggotniggerfaggotniggerfaggotniggerfaggot

[Anonymous No.12159339]

>>12159142
wrong

[Anonymous No.12159346]

>>12159142
1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.
2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself - most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change.
3. It is important to recognise that there are two completely different categories of data set that are involved in the CRU e-mail exchanges:
those compiled from direct instrumental measurements of land and ocean surface temperatures such as the CRU, GISS and NOAA data sets; and

� historic temperature reconstructions from measurements of 'proxies', for example, tree-rings.

4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.

[Anonymous No.12159349]

>>12159142
6. There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the

e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific 'self correction', which is vital to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivity as practised in this field and its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation.
7. Fundamentally, we consider it should be inappropriate for the verification of the integrity of the scientific process to depend on appeals to Freedom of Information legislation. Nevertheless, the right to such appeals has been shown to be necessary. The e-mails illustrate the possibility of networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding newcomers. Requiring data to be electronically accessible to all, at the time of publication, would remove this possibility.
8. As a step towards restoring confidence in the scientific process and to provide greater transparency in future, the editorial boards of scientific journals should work towards setting down requirements for open electronic data archiving by authors, to coincide with publication. Expert input (from journal boards) would be needed to determine the category of data that would be archived. Much 'raw' data requires calibration and processing through interpretive codes at various levels.

[Anonymous No.12159364]

>>12159142
9. Where the nature of the study precludes direct replication by experiment, as in the case of time-dependent field measurements, it is important that the requirements include access to all the original raw data and its provenance, together with the criteria used for, and effects of, any subsequent selections, omissions or adjustments. The details of any statistical procedures, necessary for the independent testing and replication, should also be included. In parallel, consideration should be given to the requirements for minimum disclosure in relation to computer modelling.
Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate?
10. The scope of the UEA review is, not inappropriately, restricted to the allegations of scientific malpractice and evasion of the Freedom of Information Act at the CRU. However, most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other leading institutions involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change. In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field.
11. The first of the review's terms of reference is limited to: "...manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice..." The term 'acceptable' is not defined and might better be replaced with 'objective'.
12. The second of the review's terms of reference should extend beyond reviewing the CRU's policies and practices to whether these have been breached by individuals, particularly in respect of other kinds of departure from objective scientific practice, for example, manipulation of the publication and peer review system or allowing pre-formed conclusions to override scientific objectivity.

[Anonymous No.12159370]

>>12159142
How independent are the other two international data sets?
13. Published data sets are compiled from a range of sources and are subject to processing and adjustments of various kinds. Differences in judgements and methodologies used in such processing may result in different final data sets even if they are based on the same raw data. Apart from any communality of sources, account must be taken of differences in processing between the published data sets and any data sets on which they draw.
The Institute of Physics
February 2010

The IOPs response infront of media
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/mar/02/institute-of-physics-emails-inquiry-submission

ie first one says "these methods stinketh" the second one says "but that doesnt mean they are wrong"

[Anonymous No.12159382]

[Anonymous No.12159386]

>>12156686

Both creationists and climate science deniers constantly reuse the same dubious arguments, so its easy to collect and debunk them in one place:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

[Anonymous No.12159394]

>>12159382
science is the belief in the ignorance of experts

[Anonymous No.12159447]

How do you personally cope with the feeling that this particular ordeal won't unfuck itself? I'm feeling pretty depressed knowing that apart from my own bucket of shit life tends to unload onto human beings in their lifetime (i.e. death of relatives and friends, either sudden illness during midlife, or slow decay in later years etc), there's going to be worldwide calamity and increase in average human suffering across the globe.

I used to take solace in fact that we might be generally moving to a better future for everyone. There was kind of a gentle and warm shine of a distant star on the horizon that would make me feel at least a bit better about human condition. Now that I've took time to read through some climate change papers, even this small shred of hope is gone, and when I think about humanity as a system I envision countless attractors in this phase space, and in the center of each one of them is some shitty scenario. I can't help but wonder if we're already orbiting one of them and already on a convoluted but sure path to the inevitable catastrophe.

[Anonymous No.12159896]

>>12159447
This, everyone is exactly the kind of product they want to obtain. Neurotic, literally shaking in fear of the future, feeling powerless, better not reproduce you'll only cause them grief! Wait for the foreigners who are coming, they are gonna fix it.

Meanwhile the whole thing is a coldblooded fucking lie, a forgery so bold its actually had the top blown off of it and they are still lying through their teeth, still pushing it. Smart people are not going to take this forever, and it will end in violence.

[Anonymous No.12159949]

>>12159382
I actually laughed at the psychological motivation.

[Anonymous No.12159979]

>>12156604
why would globalists support it?

[Anonymous No.12160011]

>>12159087
>>12159102
Wow, it's fucking nothing!

[Anonymous No.12160051]

>>12159339
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.12160059]

>>12159346
>>12159349
>>12159364
>>12159370
This is mostly complaining about data sharing. It was corrected because the data sharing policies they referred to didn't actually exist. And your assessment of the revised statement is incorrect.

[Anonymous No.12160064]

>>12159394
No that's anti-intellectualism.

[Anonymous No.12160065]

>>12159154
It shows them in absolutely good light - unless they will stick to writing scifi. Otherwise they should be ignored and harassed.

[Anonymous No.12160093]

>>12160065
OK, schizo.

[Anonymous No.12160096]

>>12159382
lmao, very true

[Anonymous No.12160124]

>>12160093
Ah, schizoposter returns. How are your meds doing?

[Anonymous No.12160140]

>>12160064
its a feynman quote. The fact you dont know that is very telling

[Anonymous No.12160148]

>>12160059
dude are we actually reading the same thing?

[Anonymous No.12160152]

>>12160140
Where did I say it wasn't?

[Anonymous No.12160157]

>>12160148
We are, you just don't understand it. It's much ado about nothing anyway.

[Anonymous No.12160167]

>>12160157
or you're just projecting something someone told you about it onto it- ie not actually reading it.

Basically, i think you dont understand it

[Anonymous No.12160282]

>>12160167
I read it, what specific problems do you think it's referring to?

[Anonymous No.12160307]

>>12160282
The Institute is pleased to submit its views to inform the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee's inquiry, 'The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia'.

[Anonymous No.12160429]

>>12160307
>The disclosure of climate data
So you agree with me? It's very confusing when you won't actually respond to what I'm asking.

[Anonymous No.12160614]

>>12156604