/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11200030]

Name one(1) climate scientist that denies the consensus on the climate emergency who is not funded by dark money or directly associated with industry PR front groups or dark money.
Genuinely curious if you can, I definitely can't despite actively searching for one. I just don't think there is such a person.

[Anonymous No.11200035]

What if, several months from now, you just turn around in a dark room alone to see this woman staring at you, and she said "Why didn't you believe in me?"

how would you react?

[Anonymous No.11200040]

Dr. Haydn Washington, environmental scientist.

[Anonymous No.11200053]

>>11200040
Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand' (2011)

[Anonymous No.11200058]

>>11200040
Not a climate denier

[Anonymous No.11200060]

>>11200040
Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand (2011)

[Anonymous No.11200864]

>>11200030
There aren't any.

[Anonymous No.11200891]

they're in here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists

[Anonymous No.11202112]

>>11200891

That list is of ~300 individuals. OP asked you to name one who denied the consensus on climate emergency, and you have not name anyone.

[El Arcón No.11202115]

>>11200030
>climate scientist
These are called physicists that study the physics of the atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.11202455]

>>11200030
Willie Soon.

[Anonymous No.11202644]

>>11202455
Lol Willie gets paid millions by the industry.
He is particularly egregious, I watched one of his public relations talks and while obviously lying he said something like, "if I am not telling the truth, you can hang me right here"
Denial merchants know they deserve the rope better than anyone.

[Anonymous No.11203095]

>>11200030
You should do a cross post on /pol/

[Anonymous No.11203099]

>>11202115
No climate scientist is closer than you. The optimal choice is climatologist, though.

[Anonymous No.11203371]

>>11202644
I only know pf the nonprofit work. He has a real job, but that isn't it. You could be right but it's on you to provide the dirt.

[Anonymous No.11203406]

You can only get a job in climate science if you agree though. This is literally ministry of truth level shit

[Anonymous No.11203577]

>>11200030
>Name one psychologist who thinks psychology is bullshit science

[Anonymous No.11203592]

>>11202112
Why do you guys keep changing the name of it? Was "climate emergency" Greta's idea?

[Anonymous No.11203603]

>>11203371
>In 2011, it was revealed that Soon received over $1 million from petroleum and coal interests since 2001.[32] Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics documents obtained by Greenpeace under the US Freedom of Information Act show that the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation gave Soon two grants totaling $175,000 in 2005–06 and again in 2010. Multiple grants from the American Petroleum Institute between 2001 and 2007 totalled $274,000, and grants from Exxon Mobil totalled $335,000 between 2005 and 2010. Other coal and oil industry sources which funded him include the Mobil Foundation, the Texaco Foundation and the Electric Power Research Institute. Soon has stated unequivocally that he has "never been motivated by financial reward in any of my scientific research" and "would have accepted money from Greenpeace if they had offered it to do my research."[33]

[Anonymous No.11203610]

>>11203592
How come deniers always rely on such low IQ non-sequitur arguments?

[Anonymous No.11203616]

>>11200030
Name one that has a viable solution?

[El Arcón No.11203628]

>scientist that denies the consensus
Jonathan W. Tooker
http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=00567116317036642263

The truth is, all the scientists know that there is no consensus, and they don't deny it because they know it doesn't exist. Above link dissect the original consensus and shows that the 97% figure was obtained by removing 99% of the non-consensus scientists from the sample. It is quite an egregious misrepresentation. Pic related, the real "consensus" in the raw data was about 35%, not 97%.
>http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=00567116317036642263

[Anonymous No.11203640]

>>11203406
>You can only get a job in climate science if you agree though.
Then how are there climatologists who disagree?

>This is literally ministry of truth level shit
Ironic considering you're just making shit up about climatology.

[Anonymous No.11203643]

>>11203616
Michael Mann.

[El Arcón No.11203644]

>>11203640
>Then how are there climatologists who disagree?
Disagreeing and not agreeing are different. You can get a job if you don't agree, but you can't get a job if you do disagree.

[Anonymous No.11203653]

Freeman Dyson, utter genius physicist known for things like being a co-founder of quantum electrodyamics, is not a climate scientist per se but is a noted climate change skeptic.

He's almost 100 years old and ensconced as lifetime faculty at the IAS (appointed by none other than Oppenheimer himself) - he's got nothing to prove, or any care about industry lowlife.

[Anonymous No.11203658]

>>11203653
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiKfWdXXfIs

[Anonymous No.11203664]

>>11203643

[Anonymous No.11203669]

>>11203628
>Jonathan W. Tooker
Not a climate scientist or a scientist. Try again, without citing a schizo.

>Above link dissect the original consensus and shows that the 97% figure was obtained by removing 99% of the non-consensus scientists from the sample
It's not a consensus of scientists, it's a consensus of published research. Published research which does not pertain to the question the consensus is answering is irrelevant. It's quite an egregious misrepresentation to say that there is no consensus because there are a large number of irrelevant papers. Like saying there is no consensus that the Earth is flat because the vast majority of Earth science papers make no mention of whether they support or deny this basic fact.

[Anonymous No.11203675]

>>11203644
>Disagreeing and not agreeing are different.
The claim was that climate scientists can only get a job if they agree. So both disagreeing and not agreeing will not get you a job. Distinction without a difference.

[Anonymous No.11203681]

>>11203653
Not a climate scientist.

[Anonymous No.11203691]

>>11203658
>old man doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to subjects outside his field of expertise
>muh the earth is greening bullshit that ignores everything else

[El Arcón No.11203695]

>>11203669
A climate scientist is a physicist that studies the physics of the atmosphere. I am a physicist and I did enough research in that area to come across Cook's silly pseudo-science methodolgy.

[Anonymous No.11203701]

>>11203695
>I am a physicist
You could have been considered a physicist at some point in the past, now you're just a pathetic schizo. And you can't even do basic logic correctly since your argument leads to the conclusion that there is no consensus the Earth is flat.

[Anonymous No.11203709]

>>11203695
No argument found.

[Anonymous No.11203715]

>>11200030
>who is not funded by dark money or directly associated with industry PR front groups or dark money.
Yeah no shit. The sell-outs aren't helping with the growing problem of the lay general public distrusting science in general, either. It's a dangerous trend that has led to things like the anti-vax movement.

[Anonymous No.11203780]

>>11203653
>Climate scientist James Hansen said that Dyson "doesn't know what he's talking about.... If he's going to wander into something with major consequences for humanity and other life on the planet, then he should first do his homework—which he obviously has not done on global warming."[25]:140 Dyson replied that "[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it's rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have."
>Admits he doesn't understand global warming and his denial isn't grounded in scientific understanding
>Works for the GWPF
>cO2 iS ACTUULEE GoOd!
Yea no, his embarrassing geezer takes on global warming are being touted by PR goons looking to take advantage of his accomplishments. It's really sad actually, he doesn't deserve to have his legacy besmirched by shady doubt peddlers looking to exploit his accomplishments in taking advantage of his senility.
I give you a participation trophy because I think he might be sincere, definitely doesn't count though.

[Anonymous No.11203797]

>>11203658
Okay I don't think he is sincere anymore. He is obviously doing this as a prank

[Anonymous No.11203808]

>>11202112
I'm one of the scientists on that list who does believe in climate change, but really I only pretend to believe in climate change publicly because thats how I make money and guarantee myself a long successful career in academics. I don't really think that climate change is real, but if I said that in public then I'd have to think about getting a job outside of academia and working in the private sector. Having to produce something of value to survive and all that is just for suckers and poor people, I'm too good to sink that low.

[Anonymous No.11203911]

>>11203808
Okay, why don't you detail what precisely is wrong with the climate science for us while I get a bucket of popcorn ready.