Consensus in science

[Anonymous No.14828883]

I'm a bit conflicted about consensus. On the one hand, consensus means that the probability of something being true is rather high, so consensus should be the goal.
On the other hand, consensus carries the risk of neglect. The stronger the consensus, the bigger the burden of proof. Take Mandlbaur for example. To convince anyone that angular momentum is not conserved, he'd need to put in a lot of effort to make anyone even listen to him. Ok, he doesn't do that and people ignore him justifiably, but my point is that stronger consensus makes it hard to discover/publish earlier misconceptions.
Is that a good or bad? Should we build on consensus to discover new things at the risk of building upon false premises? Or should we reinvent the wheel continuously, but be sure that everything is correct, at the cost of progress?

[Anonymous No.14828893]

>>14828883
Consensus has a snowball effect. Once it reaches a certain point, many scientists are too afraid to speak out, so it just grows and grows.

[Anonymous No.14828896]

>>14828883
>consensus means that the probability of something being true is rather high
lol

[Anonymous No.14828906]

>>14828896
Well, apart from trolls, there's consensus that the Earth revolves around the sun. There's consensus that the Earth is older than 6000 years. There's consensus that benis in bagina makes babies while kissing doesn't.

[Anonymous No.14828936]

>>14828883
>so consensus should be the goal.
The goal is not consensus, the goal is everyone believing the correct facts. Consensus is strictly a side effect of that.

>Is that a good or bad?
Correct consensus is better than lack of consensus which is better than incorrect consensus. Which means that consensus is neither good nor bad of its own, and your conflict is kind of meaningless.

[Anonymous No.14828940]

>>14828883
Nobody measured Earth's temperature in 1900

[Anonymous No.14828941]

>>14828883
>consensus means that the probability of something being true is rather high, so consensus should be the goal.
It doesn't. This kindergarten logic only works under the false assumption that the parties in said consensus are all independent thinkers cross-validating each other, and fails to account for the reality where most parties are simply brainwashed from the same source.

[Anonymous No.14829076]

>>14828883
>The stronger the consensus, the bigger the burden of proof
No it's not, consensus rises from facts. Simply being the most correct is enough to build it on it's own.

>he'd need to put in a lot of effort to make anyone even listen to him
No he wouldn't, just publish something that's right. The fact that he can be blown out by an undergrad is why hes having hard time not consensus.

[Anonymous No.14829195]

>>14829076
You're delusional.

[Anonymous No.14829200]

>temperature rose 0.75 degrees in 120 years

is this earth shattering news?

[Anonymous No.14829207]

>>14828883
Temperature fluctuates. Ok. It may depend on geothermal or solar activity.
Why are we being punished by co2 mafia?

[Anonymous No.14829266]

>>14828883
does anyone have a correlation graph of that and emissions emitted? also stop taking consensus for granted when the consensus changes every decade

[Anonymous No.14829288]

>>14828906
>all consensus is the same
retard

[Anonymous No.14829294]

>>14829200
Your plot shows that it normally takes thousands of years.

[Anonymous No.14829452]

>>14829294
Doesn't seem that way. Earlier peaks are much sharper.

[Anonymous No.14829460]

>>14828883
Coal is worse than plastic/diesel. But there are more people, more methane.

[Anonymous No.14829472]

>>14829200
Nobody measured earths average temperature in 1900, or in 1950. Absolutely no global measurements of any kind, you still have systematic errors like measuring temperatures at airport runways or at the roof of Oxfords natural sciences building.
Was anybody was keeping accurate <0.1C° records in central africa or maoist China in 1970? Absolutely not.

[Anonymous No.14829476]

>>14829472
>Nobody measured earths average temperature in 1900, or in 1950.
Nobody measured the circumference of the earth. Do we know it though?

[Anonymous No.14829480]

>>14829476
What does your post have to do with anything in this thread? We are talking about temperatures if you didn't notice already

[Anonymous No.14829487]

>>14828883
>Consensus in science

The overwhelming majority of France says that the great replacemnt and white genocide are both real and underway
Science says: great replacement? never heard of it
So science doesn't respect large consensus views as more legitimate than minority viewpoints, they only hold the opinion that consensus matters when their opinion is the majority one.

[Anonymous No.14829584]

>>14829487
>The overwhelming majority
>half
Also, >>>/pol/.
>So science doesn't respect large consensus views as more legitimate than minority viewpoints,
If that poll is even real, cattle repeating the same thing is not even remotely comparable to scientific consensus.

[Anonymous No.14829793]

>>14829472
>Nobody measured earths average temperature in 1900, or in 1950.
Wrong.

>you still have systematic errors like measuring temperatures at airport runways or at the roof of Oxfords natural sciences building
Insignificant due to homogenization.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012JD018509

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL067640

>Was anybody was keeping accurate <0.1C° records in central africa or maoist China in 1970? Absolutely not.
Proof?

[Anonymous No.14829798]

>>14829793
>Insignificant due to homogenization.
It's significant because stations have been removed since 1900. More temperatures are coming from artificially warmed stations like airports and parking lots, and fewer from the countryside. Most temperatures from these regions are now fully simulated, not actually taken by instruments.

[Anonymous No.14829802]

>>14829452
The scale of your graph is hundreds of thousands of years and doesn't even show current warming as a comparison.

[Anonymous No.14829821]

>>14829266

[Anonymous No.14829838]

>>14829802
Your hockey stick is based on old fraud. Posting it in every thread doesn't make it right.

[Anonymous No.14829841]

>>14829207
>Temperature fluctuates
It does, for specific reasons. Temperature is currently increasing 25 times faster than the last interglacial warming. The reason is CO2 emissions: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/174407/

>It may depend on geothermal or solar activity.
Nope, it's massive amounts of CO2. Geothermal doesn't have a sidings effect on surface temperature and the Sun is near a grand minimum.

[Anonymous No.14829842]

>>14828940
Wrong. See >>14829793

[Anonymous No.14829848]

>>14829838
>Your hockey stick is based on old fraud.
Proof?

>Posting it in every thread doesn't make it right.
The published research behind it makes it right. Whining about it with no evidence or argument doesn't make it wrong. It just makes you look dogmatic.

[Anonymous No.14829851]

>>14829848
Michael Mann has had so many papers retracted it's unreal, and he lost a defamation lawsuit because he refused to prove his conclusions were reached in a scientific way.

[Anonymous No.14829856]

>>14829266
>also stop taking consensus for granted when the consensus changes every decade
Ah right, those dumb scientists keep flip flipping over whether the Earth is round or global warming existsevery decade. Right. The funny thing is you believe in every consensus except the few that contradict your dogmatic beliefs.

[Anonymous No.14829866]

>>14829851
>Michael Mann has had so many papers retracted it's unreal
Proof?

>he lost a defamation lawsuit because he refused to prove his conclusions were reached in a scientific way.
Obviously he lost a defamation lawsuit (which has nothing to do with his conclusions or research), but in what way did the lawsuits somehow show his work is fraudulent?

The "hockeystick" graph is literally the scientific consensus. No (active) researcher in the field rejects it. There have been dozens or even hundreds of other papers published on global warming and they pretty much all say the exact same thing as Mann's work: Man in warming the climate with greenhouse gas emissions. You just like to attack Mann in particular for some reason, probably because it gives you a tangible figure to put your frustrations on and supposedly if you can refute Mann, then you can refute global warming. Doesn't work that way.

[Anonymous No.14829879]

>>14829851
>Michael Mann has had so many papers retracted it's unreal
Really? Name one. And why are you talking about Michael Mann when the redistricting I posted is not even from him? Do you have any clue what you're even talking about?

>and he lost a defamation lawsuit because he refused to prove his conclusions were reached in a scientific way.
Proof? His data and code is publicly available and his results have been replicated over and over again by different methodologies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years

Sounds like you're confused.

[Anonymous No.14829880]

>>14829866
>Obviously he lost a defamation lawsuit (which has nothing to do with his conclusions or research), but in what way did the lawsuits somehow show his work is fraudulent?
He was suing over comments alleging he was a fraud. He was forced to settle the lawsuit because he was unwilling to provide the proof the court would need to make that determination (his algorithms for creating the hockey stick data).

[Anonymous No.14829882]

So pollution is no longer the issue.

[Anonymous No.14829885]

>>14829880
>He was forced to settle the lawsuit because he was unwilling to provide the proof the court would need to make that determination (his algorithms for creating the hockey stick data).
Lie. They're publicly available: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/research/MANNETAL98/

Try again, this time give evidence for your claims.

[Anonymous No.14829890]

>>14829882
CO2 is the issue, are you paying for it to be scrubbed?

[Anonymous No.14829900]

>>14829890
CO2 is vaporwave. but you can.

[Anonymous No.14829918]

>>14828883
Who fucking cares if niggers don't believe Truth? Niggers that refuse Truth deserve to live in darkness.

Simple as.

[Anonymous No.14829931]

>>14829266

[Anonymous No.14829940]

>>14829900
Can someone translate this from Retard to English?

[Anonymous No.14829941]

>>14829584
69% is far closer to 3 quarters than half, you illiterate nigger

[Anonymous No.14829946]

>>14829941
>half of them believe the Great Replacement is happening
LOL, and you call others illiterate.

[Anonymous No.14829951]

>>14829841
Good! Malthusian economics says you niggers need to die. I, and my ilk, are going to survive, even if it means eating you niggers and using your hides as sunbrellas, nigger. You wanna science? Survival of the fittest, nigger. Game on.

[Anonymous No.14829969]

>>14829946
69% agree that there are too many niggergrants. 50% admit it's replacement agenda; the other 19 do as well, but they're too bitchmade to admit it.

Learn to conceptualize the issue and read the subtext, nigger.

[Anonymous No.14829973]

No one in France is saying there's too many Korean immigrants or too many Californian immigrants. They're talking about the midnight niggers coming in by the rickety raft-load.

Simple as

[Anonymous No.14829977]

>>14829452
It’s not. Even in the highest warming rate out of a glacial period, it took thousands of years per degree of warming

[Anonymous No.14829978]

There is nothing scientific about consensus. If something needs consensus to be true, then there are other motivating factors besides actually evidence.

[Anonymous No.14829981]

>>14829798
Warming island effect is well known and taken into consideration when the data is put together

[Anonymous No.14829984]

>>14829978
>There is nothing scientific about consensus.
Except for all the scientific consensus you accept unquestionably...

>If something needs consensus to be true
Strawman.

[Anonymous No.14829986]

>>14829851
There’s been numerous reconstructions since Mann’s paper and they all show the same results

[Anonymous No.14829989]

>>14829984
>retard assumes other peoples thoughts
>retard uses a word he doesn't understand
Fuck off retard.

[Anonymous No.14829991]

>>14829981
>trust me
>t. michael mann

[Anonymous No.14829998]

>>14829991
>global vs Europe temperatures
You don’t even have basic knowledge about any of this

[Anonymous No.14830009]

>>14829991

[Anonymous No.14830015]

Consensus and a lack of critical reflection or outright attacks against critics is an indicator that there is a high probability of something is a grift and not science. The "climate" grift is the most obvious one. Btw somebody define climate, the term in itself is bullshit imo, extremely unprecise

[Anonymous No.14830021]

>>14830015
Climate grift has been happening for 40 fucking years. Its really unbelievable people still take it seriously.

[Anonymous No.14830023]

>>14829991
https://pastglobalchanges.org/science/wg/2k-network/data
You can find the data and code do all of this. You’re posting pictures from a grifter passing regional records as global

[Anonymous No.14830030]

>>14828883
Scientists are a bunch of professional liars who rushed towards the vaccine like a pack of drug addicts rushing towards their coke, never trust their "consensus".

[Anonymous No.14830035]

>>14828883
Climate change as it is happening is impossible in a globe earth

Climate change as it is happening (worsening of extremes, hotter summers and colder winters) makes perfect sense in a flat earth since the Sun is close and small.

[Anonymous No.14830089]

When I was writing papers in college, climate and ecological issues were my bread and butter red herring issues to scapegoat shit onto when I didn't want to glorify niggers or lambast capitalism for an easy A every time.

These retarded nigger professors can't help themselves. All you gotta do is parrot their retarded ideology back at them and feign interest and you're a shoe-in.

[Anonymous No.14830098]

>>14830089
This is the challenge with high IQ people. They have no qualms debasing themselves to get to some/any ideal goal.

[Anonymous No.14830099]

>>14830089
Well played, king! Based and "I didn't come here to save every nigger" pilled.

[Anonymous No.14830103]

>>14830098
I didn't go to college to debate a homosexual professor on his faggot ideals. I paid for the price of paper to increase my leverage with future employers.

Simple as

[Anonymous No.14830118]

All of the writing assignments you're assigned collegiately focus on one of three parent subjects
>Nigger worship
>Capitalist critique
>Environmental catastrophism
This is because they are litmus testing you to "see" is (((their))) propaganda is "sticking"

If you're smart, you'll just chameleon into the issues like a based sociopath and get your A and get out. No one's going to college to save the world. Those who actually fall for this shit are useful idiots.

Simple as.

[Anonymous No.14830136]

You all are the kind of niggers where if the government went outright totalitaritarian gulag you would get mouthy and snatched up in the middle of the night.

I'm the kind of nigger that would go full on among us, work my way up real high, and sabotage/betray while feigning ignorance or incompetence.

[Anonymous No.14830144]

>>14830118
Not an argument. I consider it a major indicator of midwitism when anons go on major tangents about "useful idiots" and "propoganda", my eyes just glaze over. By all means, believe whatever you want, that wont change reality.

[Anonymous No.14830145]

>>14830144
>t. useful midiot

[Anonymous No.14830153]

>>14830145
Again, not an argument.

I find this is most insane thing about Americans, in that you retards are willing to practically burn the planet to the ground just to keep your gas guzzlers. You'll go through every idea, every conspiracy of every "libtard" making you "eat the bugs" when reality is staring you down. Global warming is making it pretty difficult to live on the planet right now, even this summer (which was absolutely torture where I live thanks for that) is still the coolest one we're going to experience probably for the rest of my life. I hate it.

[Anonymous No.14830171]

>>14830153
Here's to hoping you freeze to death swaddled in your "integrity" this winter, nigger.

[Anonymous No.14830176]

>>14829989
So prove me wrong, tell us about your flat Earth creationism.

[Anonymous No.14830179]

>>14829476
>Nobody measured the circumference of the earth.

Well, we have now with satellites.

>Do we know it though?

It could be geometrically estimated to high accuracy, which is based on measurements.

What method do you have of estimating the average temperature of the Congo?

[Anonymous No.14830181]

>>14829991
See >>14829793

[Anonymous No.14830184]

>>14830153
Not an argument. Take your meds.

[Anonymous No.14830185]

>>14830153
You niggers would poison the air we breathe if it meant you could package and sell us "fresh air".

Go fuck yourself, kike.

[Anonymous No.14830190]

>>14830021

The medical grift is even worse, yet here we are.

[Anonymous No.14830191]

>>14830153
>Where I live
(((You)))'re looking at a high of 89 degrees F over the weekend in Israel, bitch!
>Boofuckinhoo

[Anonymous No.14830198]

Sounds like we need to put more barium oxides and aluminum oxides in grid like patterns over the entire coastline. The goyim are not believing in man-made climate change yet.

[Anonymous No.14830203]

Remember when rabid leftists were caught in the act of intentionally lighting forest fires all along I-5 from Washington to Southern California 2 years ago?

Pepe farms remembers.

[Anonymous No.14830204]

>>14830089

Welcome to society, where your most important talent is your ability to suck up to your boss.

>>14830098
I think it has little to do with IQ. Much more with genetically based personality dispositions, and socialization.

[Anonymous No.14830205]

>>14830176
Nobody is talking about "flat Earth creationism" except you, retard. A consensus doesn't make something true. Why is it that so hard for your maggot brain to understand? Thats a rhetorical question by the way.

[Anonymous No.14830208]

>>14830144
>"useful idiots" and "propoganda", my eyes just glaze over.
>>14830153

Lmao. Just lmao.

Not that you'll be able to accept this, but... You are someone who has been deceived by propaganda, and in order to cope with this, you project your own mental weakness onto others.

[Anonymous No.14830217]

>>14830204
>I think it has little to do with IQ. Much more with genetically based personality dispositions, and socialization

Except when you're worshipping niggers, amorite?

[Anonymous No.14830219]

>>14830217
Nailed it!!!

[Anonymous No.14830221]

>>14830217
Oh shit!
>Shots fired!

[Anonymous No.14830224]

>>14830217
Keked and wrect!

[Anonymous No.14830228]

>>14830217
Brutal!

[Anonymous No.14830251]

>>14830089
>These retarded nigger professors can't help themselves. All you gotta do is parrot their retarded ideology back at them and feign interest and you're a shoe-in.
Or you could just not be retarded and study enough to publicly humiliate them, making them afraid of even saying a word when you're present and giving As for the entirety of the course.

The kind of stupid shit I hear coming from professor these days don't even require the amount of studying you would have to do in the past:
>master the trivium, learn to write by reading and imitating the classics of at least three languages, study Aristotle a lot, Plato a lot, Thomas Aquinas a lot, Leibniz, Schelling and Husserl a lot, absorb as much as possible the legacy of the German and Austrian universities of the first half of the 20th century, know very well the comparative history of two or three civilizations, absorb the classics of theology and mysticism of at least three religions

You don't have the excuse of only having read stem textbooks your whole life this time though, you would need a bit of courage to not stutter and question the bullshit you hear in public. To give you a personal example, I remember a teacher saying some shit about faggots being persecuted minorities in my country because of homicide rates. I wasn't as agressive as I should've, but just stating the fact that homicides are high here for everyone, much more than faggots specifically, was enough to make people see the absurdidty in the teacher's assertion. I passed that stupid elective with As of course and the teacher got very firendly with me.

[Anonymous No.14830256]

>>14830103
>I didn't go to college to debate a homosexual professor on his faggot ideals. I paid for the price of paper to increase my leverage with future employers.
You're as retarded as your professor if not more.

Also, the society you will leave is is being shaped by those homosexuals you refuse to debate with

[Anonymous No.14830263]

>>14830251
That's what I'm doing right here; where these niggers are not able to control the conversation and rules of debate by threatening to have you expelled and your career terminated for disagreeing with globohomo faggotry.

These faggot professors absolute require using their disproportionate power dynamics to maintain a stranglehold on public perspective and discourse.

Remember when we had to write papers on how social and political institutions establish, maintain and perpetuate inequality/racism/disproportionate power dynamics? I do. I remember every fucking part of it, nigger. You gave me student of the year, remember? How could I not?

Do you posit that you can somehow wield the "one ring" for "good"? Besting Sauron and bending it to your will? I don't fucking think so, nigger.

[Anonymous No.14830276]

This is the epicenter of the internet now, and I'm internet famous. I dont need to doxx myself in public and have my career and livelihood sacrificed on the altar of public opinion. Debate me here, where the I don't have these tools of petty recourse to resort to when you're absolutely bested. That's why 4-chan is among the top 4 most frequented sites on the entire internet.

Where the playing field is leveled, and I can feign having majority support by samefagging just like you fucking likes do on your like media outlets.

[Anonymous No.14830301]

>>14830251
You gno who you're talking to btw as evidenced by the specifics of who you're mentioning in the second greentext paragraph. I don't need to put on the name tag, but I have four children so it is not as simple as just having courage for myself. A couple more years and they'll be adults who can pretend to distance themselves from their father. Until then we study; duty to family must come first.

[Anonymous No.14830307]

>>14830301
>>14830251
And why don't I have the luxury of just learning things for myself this life, like the last one?

[Anonymous No.14830315]

>>14830263
>That's what I'm doing right here
You're speaking to a bubble here

>where these niggers are not able to control the conversation and rules of debate by threatening to have you expelled and your career terminated for disagreeing with globohomo faggotry
As far as I know you can fight the in court if that ever happens since you have academic freedom in law. This in universities at least. As far as career goes you really need to go independent, like someone earning his money with books, courses. talks, consulting, etc.

>These faggot professors absolute require using their disproportionate power dynamics to maintain a stranglehold on public perspective and discourse.
They just rely on ignorant cowards, nothing else

>Remember when we had to write papers on how social and political institutions establish, maintain and perpetuate inequality/racism/disproportionate power dynamics?
No because I'm not an american. If I had to write on this I would see what other conservative intellectuals wrote about it before, but if I had nothing to work with, I would start attacking their foundational morality, which is entirely subjective therefore what they consider good and essential is pointless and ultimately self-destructive.

>Do you posit that you can somehow wield the "one ring" for "good"?
Get first edition of Great Books of the Western World, read the first 3 volumes and study the topics that you, I will translate an article that describes the situation and post it next

[Anonymous No.14830323]

>>14830315
>If you still want to be a serious student...
>Olavo de Carvalho, Diário do Comércio, February 27, 2006
https://olavodecarvalho.org/se-voce-ainda-quer-ser-um-estudante-serio/

"The tragedy of the serious student in Brazil" resulted in so many letters, that I think it is better to complete, with some tips based on personal experience, the study indications I gave at the end of the article.

I will start with a random example.

The other day, I received from friends the copy of a very interesting message, posted on an Internet site by a lady, apparently educated and a university student, who, undecided between admiring and hating me, demanded an explanation for the fact that I have been right with so many predictions over almost two decades, betting almost always on the opposite of what the general opinion of the right-thinking people announced. In the opinion of the sender, as well as other participants in the debate, the most plausible hypothesis was that I was a CIA agent, therefore connected to a network of secret informants spread everywhere...

I have kept the message with the historiographical fondness that an eloquent sign of the times deserves.

What a lovely time this is, when people are not charged for their mistakes, but for their successes! If it is normal to always make mistakes, then what good would be the thousands of social scientists, historians, journalists, economists and philosophy PhDs that universities, supported by the hard work of millions of taxpayers who never went to them, pour into the national chatter market every year? Answer: They are not there to understand the world, but to transform it. But not being able to know it, since they do not believe in objective truth, they always take it in a different direction than they intended, feeling - for this very reason, damn it! - innocent of the monstrous results they produce and always deserving of a redoubled confidence to start all over again and again and again.

[Anonymous No.14830327]

>>14830323
The revolution, after all, would not be revolutionary if it did not revolutionize itself and its own history, changing its identity after each new crime and each new failure and having no satisfaction to render except to a future that, when it arrives, is no longer future and therefore has no authority to demand it from anyone. Such is, brutally summarized but not in the least deformed, the essence of the mentality that can be acquired in any university in this country and in many abroad. It is equivalent to a certificate of congenital impeccability, which confers the right to laureate stupidity, unlimited self-love, and innocent crime. No wonder so many want it, even though they know that the pay for university professions is not that great. In fact, earning less than what they desire further reinforces their feeling of incalculable merit and their revolt against the evil capitalist society that does not adequately reward the people committed to destroying it.

It is only natural that, in an environment that has been formed in such a way, the guy making correct political previsions in series must be something very strange, very suspicious, denoting demonic powers or, at the very least, some kind of dirty trick. I truly understand that, in desperation, some people even appeal to the "CIA" assumption, without taking into account that this entity, since at least forty years, has specialized in producing wrong information.

[Anonymous No.14830328]

>>14828883
>consensus means that the probability of something being true is rather high
Double digit poster detected

[Anonymous No.14830335]

Do you follow the central dogma, anon?

[Anonymous No.14830339]

>>14830327
The hypothesis that there exists an objective reality of political life, that it can be known, that the guy in question has studied hard in order to get to know it, and that after four decades of effort he has managed to assemble a set of reasonable scientific criteria to make accurate predictions within a defined framework of possibilities, ah, that doesn't occur to anyone. It is too absurd. It is outrageous. It is disgusting. It's impossible.

And I will tell you however: that is precisely what happened, goofballs. While you were filling your heads with university poop, trying not so much to seek knowledge as to imitate verbal clichés in order to look like good kids in the ideological environment around you (see my article "The juvenile imbecile", http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/textos/juvenil.htm ), I preferred to stay at home and study, because I thought that this way I would make better use of the hours that the students spent driving, making small talk, assemblies, strikes, binge parties and generalized orgies at CRUSP, totaling these various occupations approximately ninety-eight percent of the useful academic life.

Preserving my intelligence from this deadly centrifugation and from the corrupting influence of ignorant advisors, I studied to have knowledge, to assuage my doubts, without any futile hope of provincial scholastic glories.

I won't deny that I have gained something beyond pure knowledge. I gained the pleasure of being able to call the guys morons without any insulting intent and with strict scientific realism.

[Anonymous No.14830342]

>>14830339
While they were intoxicated by Eduardo Galeano, Noam Chomsky, Foucault, Derrida, and at best Nietzsche and Heidegger, brilliant teachers of mental confusion, I asked myself the fundamental questions of political philosophy - which is at the same time philosophy of history - and tried to answer them with all seriousness, surrounding myself with all the help available in books from various times, scientific journals, and personal contacts with scholars from various countries.

The results were being presented, here and there, in the form of classes and handouts, without the slightest concern to publish them in books. Books for what? In Brazil today, the more serious the book, the greater the certainty that it will be totally ignored, except by the circle of scholars who already knew it through direct listening to the author. At a time when literature is personified by Mr. Luís Fernando Veríssimo, philosophy by Ms. Marilena, and political science by Dr. Emir Sader, any more serious scientific effort is somewhat embarrassed to be shown in public.

We have returned to the age of oral dissemination. All effective knowledge has become esoteric. The essential of what I learned and taught about political philosophy is in the recordings of my courses given at the PUC university in Paraná, as well as in the handouts "Being and Power", "What is the Psyche?" and "Method in the Human Sciences". Those who have had access to this material - which I will publish when my journalistic duties give me a break from editing it - know that there are ways to objectively describe any social-political situation and to accurately predict its possibilities of development. This, and nothing else, is the mystery behind my predictions. As for the errors of others, it is not my place to explain them.

[https://archive dot ph/uy5Hc No.14830343]

>>14828893
>>14828896
yeah

[Anonymous No.14830347]

>>14830342
Of the questions I referred to above, some of the most important for analyzing political situations were the following:

1. What is the nature of power, not only in politics but in all human relations, and what is the specific difference between political power and other forms of power?

2. What exactly is "action" on a historical scale? Under what conditions does the expression "history of this" or "history of that" refer to a real entity, capable of continuous action over time, and when does it refer only, metonymically, to an ideal subject, with no unity of action of its own, as for example when one speaks of "History of Brazil", or "history of the bourgeoisie"? In short: who is the subject of history?

3. What is the relationship between the subjective "intentions" of historical agents and the real effects of their actions? What equation is formed between objective knowledge of the data of the situation, the decisions taken, the execution, the specific results, and their dilution in a larger picture where other factors come into play? Is there an efficient historical action, in which the effects more or less faithfully reproduce the intentions? Or, on the contrary, is human history always doomed to be, as Weber said, "the collection of the unpremeditated consequences of our actions"?

[Anonymous No.14830352]

>>14828883
There is no “justification” for ignorance. Ignorance is the same as stupidity.

[Anonymous No.14830355]

>>14828883
I have put in 18 hour days for years of my life you lying zombie.

[Anonymous No.14830360]

>>14830342
Yet another retarded third worlder who thinks he's got it all figured out because he read some old faggy flossophical works written by men who diddled young boys
When are you people finally gonna understand that science has nothing to do with your philosophy bullshit and that any appeals to "virtue", "the collective will", "common sense" all fail once you step outside of your little academic discussion chambers for Humanitiesfags?
>bro, but you don't get it .I read le Aristotle in Greek after spending 5 million years memorizing Attic Greek verb conjugation and noun declension paradigms and I also read St. Anselm in Latin which means I am right because history vindicates me duuude
The way the world works isn't decided just by namedropping old treatises and appealing to cherrypicked "tradition" (which really just means some groups of ideas that some guy whose works didn't all get turned into a pile of ashes wrote a very long time ago)

[Anonymous No.14830364]

>>14830347
4. On the presupposition that no one can place himself outside the common framework of human life in order to observe it "from above", and that therefore every observation is a form of participation, it is not possible to isolate observation and confession entirely. What is the relationship between self-knowledge and historical knowledge? In what extent can and should knowledge of history be a means of integration of the scholar's personal consciousness, and to what extent is this reflected in the veracity of the historical description obtained? To what extent is every history an autobiography, and therefore every description of a given political, social, and cultural situation a personal confession?

5. To what extent, therefore, is the study of the human sciences an "ascetic" practice of self-knowledge, and to what extent can the ascetic and mystical disciplines developed by traditional religions, as well as the modern techniques of psychotherapy and self-help, play an essential role in this study?

6. How is the psychology of knowledge like in history and in the human sciences in general? From the perception of sensitive data (documents, monuments, observed actions) to the general interpretative syntheses, what is the psychological path taken and how to direct it in order to reduce the possibility of errors?

[Anonymous No.14830367]

>Olavo Luiz Pimentel de Carvalho[a] GCRB (29 April 1947 – 24 January 2022)[1][2][3][4] was a Brazilian polemicist, self-proclaimed philosopher,[5][6][7] political pundit, former astrologer, journalist, and far-right conspiracy theorist.
L O L

[Anonymous No.14830375]

>>14830364
The philosophers that I studied the most to find the answers (and here are some suggestions for those interested) were Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, St. Thomas, S. Bonaventure, Duns Scotus, Leibniz, Schelling, Husserl, Scheler, Lavelle, Croce, Ortega, Zubiri, Marias, Voegelin, Lonergan, our own Mário Ferreira dos Santos, and Albert Camus in L'Homme Révolté.

The great historians of philosophy, such as Gomperz, Ueberweg, and Zeller, should be read with devotion. Other authors from the human sciences who helped me a lot were Ibn Khaldun, Vico, Ranke, Taine, Huizinga, Weber, Böhm-Bawerk, von Mises, Sorokin, Victor Frankl, Paul Diel, Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, Franz Rosenzweig, Lipot Szondi, Maurice Pradines, Alois Dempf, Max Dvorak, Rudolf Arnheim, Erwin Panofsky, A. D. Sertillanges, Mortimer J. Adler, Oliveira Martins, Gilberto Freyre, and Otto Maria Carpeaux.

Despite innumerable information errors, Walter Scott's Life of Napoleon was also of great benefit for the acuity of its historical psychology. The greatest historian alive today is Modris Eksteins (do you know what "must read" means?).

Of the poets and fictionists, those who produced true scientific descriptions of the human condition, very useful in my studies, were Sophocles, Dante, Shakespeare, Camões, Cervantes, Goethe, Dostoevsky, Alessandro Manzoni, Pío Baroja, T. S. Eliot, W. B. Yeats, Antonio Machado, Thomas Mann, Jacob Wassermann, Robert Musil, Hermann Broch, Heimito von Doderer, Julien Green, Georges Bernanos and François Mauriac.

The Bible has to be reread all the time (don't read the Gospel in search of "religion": read it as a narrative of something that really happened; pay special attention to Matthew 11:1-6, where Jesus himself teaches the criteria for you to clarify your doubts about Him; I think about it all the time). The Koran, the Vedas, the Tao-Te-King and the I-Ching, as well as the writings of Confucius, Shânkara and Ibn'Arabi, are worth periodic consultation.

[Anonymous No.14830382]

>>14829076
None of my proofs have ever been defeated by anyone. Not professors or students. Nobody has ever defeated any of my papers. Lying to yourself zombie.

Rebuttal 6 : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357302312_Rebuttals

[Anonymous No.14830383]

>>14830367
>source: wikishills
L O L

[Anonymous No.14830385]

>>14830347
Good posts. Driving right now. Will give them a deeper read when I get home.

[Anonymous No.14830386]

>>14828883
>Japanese Meteorological Agency
>1880

[Anonymous No.14830387]

>>14829076
“Just publish something” when ‘consensus’ is against you it is impossible to publish assshole.
I have literally been rejected without review hundreds of times without any attempt ever made to address any argument.
Ignorant zombie.
http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/rejections.txt

[Anonymous No.14830390]

>>14830375
The personal advice I received from generous masters, whom I pestered by means of letters, phone calls, and visits, I will speak of another day.

The important thing is that you don't study just for studying, to "acquire culture" or to follow a university career, but to find answers to certain questions that have existential importance for you, for your formation as a human being and not just as a scholar. Of course, the questions will define themselves little by little, in the course of the readings themselves, but as this happens they will better define the direction of your studies. And it is essential that, in your eagerness to read, you don't let your accumulation of knowledge exceed your level of self-awareness, of maturity, of personal responsibility in all areas of life. If you are not able to draw from a book valid consequences for your moral orientation in the world, you are not ready to read that book. Never forget Goethe's advice, "Talent is honed in solitude, character in the turmoil of the world."

>end of article
>>14830315
>I will translate an article that describes the situation and post it next

>>14830367
the article content's worth is self-evident by it's precision for anyone that reads it. the shift of discourse in anti-system anon to swallowing whole the establishment's charicatures given to its enemies leads me to think you're another one of those UN, WEF, or some other abyss of prostitutes, using COINTEL
https://www.globalresearch.ca/cointelpro-techniques-for-dilution-misdirection-and-control-of-an-internet-forum/5309987

it's irrelevant, as I said the content is precise and useful, eviodent to anyone who lived in those contexts, therefore worthy of meditation, also see pic since you used wikipedia

[Anonymous No.14830392]

>>14830375
You never read Origen? Stromateis is solid. Philosophumena is even better and once youve read Stromateis yes I will undoubtedly see that hippolytus of Rome never existed; rather Philo was a price of Origen's work that even his biggest hater, Jerome, couldn't live to see destroyed.

[Anonymous No.14830397]

ITT: heartland institute shills try and break down the concept of truth itself so that they can make you believe anything they want

[Anonymous No.14830405]

>>14830367
>>14830390
to complement my reply to an ad hominem, you can read his resumé yourself, also the opinion of critics such as wolfgang smith, letters and decorations he received
https://olavodecarvalho.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/R%C3%A9sum%C3%A9-English.pdf
https://olavodecarvalho.org/category/opinioes-da-critica/
https://olavodecarvalho.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Letters.pdf
https://olavodecarvalho.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Decorations-and-certificates.pdf

i also recommend reading his debate with dugin
https://debateolavodugin.blogspot.com/

It's unfortunate that one needs to answer an ad hominem with documents and curriculum, but since he was an enemy of communists here he was in always a target of vast and enduring campaigns of reputation assassination by the media (the usual leftists, which he always exposed as the deformed frauds they are, here is an example that doesn't even need further words, just put them side by side: https://istoe.com.br/os-novos-censores/
https://istoe.com.br/o-guardiao-da-constituicao/ )

[Anonymous No.14830408]

>>14830397
The academic definition of Truth throughout most of the Western world is that Truth is subjective


If Truth is subjective, then so is a lie. If there is no such thing as objective Truth, there is no such thing as a Lie.

You can't have it both ways. Either every modicum of what you call "education" is a lie or objective truth exists and you are lying about it.

[Anonymous No.14830410]

>>14830397
I'm pretty sure it's UN shills, since when this article was posted on sci they deleted it a few hours after
https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/benefits-world-hunger

[Anonymous No.14830413]

>>14830408
>The academic definition of Truth throughout most of the Western world is that Truth is subjective
I've met a canadian who said such stupidity, I gave him an example of objective truth and he agreed that it was objective, but in retrospective I should've asked if that assertion (that "truth is subjective") was another subjective truth too

[Anonymous No.14830422]

>>14830397
>consciousness thread

[Anonymous No.14830423]

>>14830323
>"The tragedy of the serious student in Brazil"
Refers to this article
https://olavodecarvalho.org/a-tragedia-do-estudante-serio-no-brasil/

Of special usefulness to this thread is this translated part

>Of politics, nothing good can be expected in a humanly bearable timeframe. A large scale cultural action - the foundation of an authentic higher education institution, to counterbalance the uspian disgrace - is also not at all probable, given the omission of the so-called "elites", always with their tails between their legs, oscillating between licking the feet of the petista scoundrel a little more or clinging to the first zesserra that comes along.
>To the student who still manages to glimpse what intellectual life is and makes it the objective of his existence, there are two paths left: exile, which can lead to the wrong place (Brazilian misery is born in Paris), and isolation, which can lead the weakest to a despair even deeper than the one they are in.
>The only viable solution, as I see it, is the formation of small solidary groups, firmly determined to obtain a solid intellectual education, initially without any official or academic recognition, but later forcing this recognition to be obtained by means of overwhelming proof of superiority. I no longer teach in Brazil, but experience has shown that many of my students, with a few years of classes and plenty of study at home, can already outdo by a mile, not even students, but USP professors of the little calibre of Demetrio Magnoli and Emir Sader, which, all things considered, is an unequal fight, cowardice even.

[Anonymous No.14830425]

[Anonymous No.14830433]

[Anonymous No.14830441]

If you tell people Truth, they will hate you for it. If you tell them lies that .make them feel good, or lies they want to believe to be true; they love you for it.

This is why I have no qualms with bringing people to the cross under false pretenses. For no man has the power to save, which lie solely in the providence of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Everyone loves first day Jesus, but how quickly do they scatter at the sermon on the mount on the second day?

Christ saves, absolutely, and transforms us in the process of sanctification, so what business has honesty in the meanwhile, when souls are lives are in peril?

Cast your honest nets and catch what you may. I'll hang back here, doing the dirty work, in hopes of salvaging those who are otherwise eternally lost; a sheep in wolves' clothing, wiser than a serpent.

>Mercernary of Christ

[Anonymous No.14830457]

>measure temperature with thermometer outside
>surrounding becomes more urbanized over time
>average temperature rises as a result
>"it must be climate change"

[Anonymous No.14830485]

>>14830457
Refuse to measure an ice skater. Just say that she “spins faster because angular momentum is conserved.
Never measure.

[Anonymous No.14830500]

>>14830457
Sometimes they move thermometers and lump the data together. Like changing London temps to Heathrow.

[Anonymous No.14830538]

>>14828883
>I'm a bit conflicted about consensus
Why, it's for idiots. A mass movement phenomena. You don't need it when there is proof otherwise one single fact can refute even an 100% "consent". Consense is no sense.

[Anonymous No.14830544]

>>14830500
You don*t need thermometers to see long term clima effects. Ice caps, vegetation, even winter sport and other events are way more better as this faulty probe of usually a few mm in diameter (i do that as an pro). Looking that way there was undoubtedly a warming until 2010-2012. After it's getting colder, that's why the parasites changes wording to "climate change". The most retarded term ever and only plausible if you are an idiot licking the ass of power because muuhh funding.

[Anonymous No.14830632]

>>14830347
Wow Olavo De Carvalho was that powerful? I thought the attempt to turn sociology into a real science ended in the early 1900 when Max Weber promoted its conversion into political activism.
I have come with a simple theory as to the nature of power and that is the capacity or perception of a capacity to see or calculate the future. By calculation, faking or actual prophetic powers those who can see the future have the power.
Science is all about predicting the future, to some level (where le cannonball is gonna land). Politics is about making promises of some great future and this goes for dictators too. Military leaders have to convince their troops they are not being lead to a meat grinder but to victory because "general knows best". Entrepreneurs promise they can turn $1 into $2 because "great visionary" and all finance experts just try to predict the future.
Most people tho dont even know the present.

[Anonymous No.14830970]

>>14829793
What is this, another graph? Lol 1750, are yoi doubling down? Nobody measured earth's average temperature at any point before 1980, and even modern measurements suck. Imagine how bad temperature is measured in Congo if in England its measured at the runway in Heathrow

[Anonymous No.14830989]

>>14828883

[Anonymous No.14830995]

>>14830970
>Nobody measured earth's average temperature at any point before 1980
Nobody put Jupiter on a scale, how come we know its mass?

[Anonymous No.14830996]

>>14830397
it is the heartland institute trying to get me to believe troons are real women? That people voting is a threat to democracy and doing my own research is what dumb people do while smart people "trust the science?" (what the media and politicians tell them to think)

I was wondering who was behind all this shit

[Anonymous No.14831001]

>>14830996
The heartland institute is a fossil fuel shill organisation, so if any of that helps big coal, they might be behind it, but I doubt that trannies have anything to do with coal.

[Anonymous No.14831002]

>>14828893
Maybe break away and do your own science.
With blackjack and hookers?

[Anonymous No.14831180]

>>14829793
Why have the oscillations become smaller ?

[Anonymous No.14831189]

>>14831180
How can you tell that they have? The "oscillations" are well within the uncertainties.

[Anonymous No.14831203]

>>14830153
Your weather was local. My summer was colder than normal. Anecdotal is only anecdotal.

[Anonymous No.14831211]

>>14831203
>My summer was colder than normal.
Where exactly was that?

[Anonymous No.14831273]

>>14830425

[Anonymous No.14831280]

>>14830205
>Nobody is talking about "flat Earth creationism" except you, retard.
So you're saying you accept the consensus on the shape of the Earth and evolution? Sounds like my assumption is correct.

>A consensus doesn't make something true.
Who said it did?

[Anonymous No.14831287]

>>14830457
>>measure temperature with thermometer outside
>>surrounding becomes more urbanized over time
>>average temperature rises as a result
Wrong. See >>14829793

[Anonymous No.14831295]

>>14830500
>Sometimes they move thermometers and lump the data together. Like changing London temps to Heathrow.
Source?

[Anonymous No.14831297]

>>14828883
>stronger consensus makes it hard to discover/publish earlier misconceptions
Sorta untrue. If there is consensus, it means that other scientists repeated experiments to confirm the results of someone else and that's why they are convinced. You don't reach consensus because enough people read your paper and "believed" you. You reach it when people build off your work with their own experiments that not only confirm (or support, actually) what you claim, but also show "if X is true -> then Y is true" results that they end up showing is "true". If you wish to directly contradict X, you will have a hard time. But, usually what happens, is that the evidence of X can be viewed a different way and you find a better theory that still fits within the evidence (and ideally, that fits BETTER than X given the evidence), and show where X and your new theory diverges, and perform experiments that determine whether X or your new theory is more likely true.
You become an absolute superstar in science if you overturn old theories. It's literally the holy grail of science; if you manage to overturn a long-held belief, you get fast-tracked to tenure and stardom. It happens all the time in my field (cell biology), as we get better microscopy and biochemical techniques, very course theories are getting overturned by much finer, intricate theories that explain the biology/results better. Overturning consensus is very much welcomed as it usually helps everyone's science. If X is wrong, but it fits 90% of the data, and you introduce a new theory that explains 99% of the data, it's very much welcomed.

[Anonymous No.14831302]

>>14830538
Then you should easily be able to refute the consensus of you disagree with it. Go ahead.

[Anonymous No.14831306]

>>14830544
>Ice caps, vegetation, even winter sport and other events are way more better as this faulty probe of usually a few mm in diameter
Your delusional. Proxies always have orders of magnitude more uncertainty than thermometer measurements.

[Anonymous No.14831320]

>>14830970
>What is this, another graph?
Why are you whining about graphs? Are they scary to you?

>Lol 1750, are yoi doubling down?
On what?

>Nobody measured earth's average temperature at any point before 1980
Sorry, the data says you're wrong. Do you have any actual evidence for your claims? Have you done any analysis? Did you find any flaws in Berkeley Earth's data screening or processing? Or are you just hoping no one will notice you're making shit up?

[Anonymous No.14831329]

>>14831302
Not the same Anon here, but I can refute the consensus absolutely and undeniably. Except that there is mass psychosis so the facts do not make any dent in the stubborn denial of the masses.
Here is absolute falsification of the “law” of conservation of angular momentum: http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/MPS.pdf

[Anonymous No.14831490]

>>14831329
If it's absolute and undeniable, why have several people shown you're using the wrong equation, don't take into account friction and energy being added to the system, and don't even understand what COAM is?

[Anonymous No.14831597]

>>14831490
Anyone claiming that I am using the wrong equation is simply lying. See rebuttal 9 : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357302312_Rebuttals

[Anonymous No.14831602]

>>14831490
Anyone claiming I don’t take into account the energy added in is negligent of my proof because equation 19 is precisely an account of the energy added in and forms the basis of my proof. Also see rebuttal number 17 : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357302312_Rebuttals

[Anonymous No.14831612]

>>14831490
Anyone claiming I do not take friction into account is grasping at straws and tries to conflate theoretical physics with experimental physics. Rebuttal 1,2,5,7,9,20,21 and 24: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357302312_Rebuttals

[Anonymous No.14831614]

>>14831329
>>14831597
>>14831602
Go away, this isn't about you

[Anonymous No.14831619]

>>14831490
Anyone claiming that I “don’t understand” is evading my paper and presenting ad hominem which is dishonest and disgusting behavior.

[Anonymous No.14831635]

>>14831614
I am giving an example of a proof which cannot be defeated and is being unreasonably suppressed because of consensus.

It is highly pertinent to the discussion and you are a direct example of the desperation to censor my discovery by people who are indoctrinated by the irrational consensus and are busy conducting active censorship by slander and insult.

[Anonymous No.14831969]

>>14830995
What does that have to do with the thread? Gravity? Do you even read yourself? We are talking about temperature

[Anonymous No.14831981]

>>14831320
>Sorry, the data says you're wrong. Do you have any actual evidence for your claims?
You have no data you only have a drawing. Nobody measured earths average temperature in 1750 or at any point before 1980 and even recent measurements have an abysmally low quality

[Anonymous No.14832010]

>>14831273

[Anonymous No.14832026]

>>14831981
>You have no data you only have a drawing.
What do you think, a plot is?

[Anonymous No.14832039]

>>14828906
>consensus that the Earth revolves around the sun
remind me, what was the consensus on this a couple hundred years ago?
>There's consensus that benis in bagina makes babies while kissing doesn't
not for much longer, consensus now says two benises make a baby, just as long as one benis has a mental illness

[Anonymous No.14832071]

>>14832026
Its a plot of nothing. Its just a drawing and doesnt represent any data. You could post it as an excel table and iy would not change anything, these numbers are all made up. I mean you are claiming someone measured earths average temperature in 1750 and that simply did not happen.

[Anonymous No.14832076]

>>14832071
>I mean you are claiming someone measured earths average temperature in 1750 and that simply did not happen.
No one is claiming that, retardo.

[Anonymous No.14832083]

>>14832076
So whats your plot supposed to mean?

[Anonymous No.14832101]

>>14832083
That they travelled back in time with a bunch of thermometers.
What do you fucking think it means?

[Anonymous No.14832103]

>>14832101
That didnt happen

[Anonymous No.14832119]

>>14832103
Of course it didn't. But in case you're seriously unaware: They use all sorts of different proxies from all around the world. You don't need to be there in 1750 when you can analyze a tree that was alive in 1750. And corals that were alive in 1750. And sediment that settled in 1750. And ice that was formed in 1750. And stalagmites that were growing in 1750. You can do all these things today and that is what people have been doing for many years now.

[Anonymous No.14832146]

>>14831969
No. We are talking about consensus.

[Anonymous No.14832149]

>>14832119
>They use all sorts of different proxies from all around the world. You don't need to be there in 1750
So all you have is a hypothesis, you can't actually measure anything. You are doing indirect measurements backed by hypothesis you can't ever test so you are not doing science. You dont have any equation to link tree rings in some forest to global average temperatures.
And heres the best part, if you look at the alleged margin of error claimed in your last drawing (those big grey bands) you see that they are as big as the change you are trying to measure. You have alleged errors of 1 degree while measuring a change of 1 degree. So by your own unscientific model you are just reporting noise.
I call it unscientific because you can't ever test if the model works. You have assumptions within assumptions of how some Oxygen isotope and tree ring density square with global temperatures. Testing is impossible and if you go along and just "accept model" then your margins of errors are still bigger than what you are trying to measure

[Anonymous No.14832171]

>>14828883
Refusing to re-invent the wheel is hindering progress. If an engineer makes a design using conservation of angular momentum by mistake instead of conserving the regular momentum then it will be a disaster and that can easily happen because nobody admits it is wrong. Because consensus is wrong.

[Anonymous No.14832208]

>>14832149
>So all you have is a hypothesis
Wrong. I have nothing of this, I'm not a climatologist. They have heaps of data
>you can't actually measure anything
You can actually measure a lot from each sample. Look at how many people are needed to evaluate a single sample.
>You are doing indirect measurements backed by hypothesis you can't ever test so you are not doing science
Obviously you can test them, make models from theory, lab measurements and then cross-check your methods. For example, you know the fractionation of different isotopes, lifetimes of radioactive isotopes etc.
>You dont have any equation to link tree rings in some forest to global average temperatures
Why does everything have to happen in one single step with you? They have formulas to link tree rings to local temperature:
https://link . springer . com / article / 10 .1007 / s00704 -020- 03326-w
And others have formulas to link a network of local temperatures to global temperatures
>in your last drawing
It's not a drawing, downie and it's neither mine, nor did I post it.

[Anonymous No.14832214]

>>14832149
>you see that they are as big as the change you are trying to measure
Or maybe .... you realize that the data shows no significant change within its uncertainties? There's no "change they want to measure". They want to know the temperature, that's it.
>You have alleged errors of
Again, I have not and I have not posted this either.
> you can't ever test if the model works
Oh yes, you can. Just open any, literally any publication on that topic. They always have cross-validation and tests. Everything else would be unscientific.
>You have assumptions within assumptions of how some Oxygen isotope and tree ring density square with global temperatures.
I wouldn't call isotope fractionation an "assumption", that's really simple physics.
>Testing is impossible
Why? You can test this today. You can cut a tree and look at the rings 20 years ago when precise measurements were taken.
>bigger than what you are trying to measure
Again, not how it works

[Anonymous No.14832298]

>>14828883
Consensus says that light has no mass and Mandlbaur proved that it does have mass.
To progress, we have to rewrite all of the rules from the last three and a half centuries.

[Anonymous No.14832338]

>>14831981
>You have no data you only have a drawing.
Wrong again, retard.

http://berkeleyearth.org/data/

>Nobody measured earths average temperature in 1750
They measured local temperatures, and the coverage was only good enough around 1850 to determine the global average.

>or at any point before 1980 and even recent measurements have an abysmally low quality
Proof? The data says you're wrong. Do you have any actual evidence for your claims? Have you done any analysis? Did you find any flaws in Berkeley Earth's data screening or processing? Or are you just hoping no one will notice you're making shit up? Apparently it's the latter.

[Anonymous No.14832362]

>>14832071
>Its a plot of nothing.
It's a plot of thermometer records averaged over the globe.

>Its just a drawing and doesnt represent any data.
Why are you lying?

http://berkeleyearth.org/data/

>these numbers are all made up.
Proof?

[Anonymous No.14832369]

>>14832338
>They measured local temperatures, and the coverage was only good enough around 1850 to determine the global average.
Modern soientists claim that their measurements were so wrong that they have to apply over 1 degree of cooling to them to make them fit the hockey stick.

[Anonymous No.14832387]

>>14832369
This op is about consensus and Mandlbaur. Why are you retards talking about temperature?

[Anonymous No.14832423]

>>14832149
>you can't actually measure anything.
Thermometer records aren't measurements? OK, schizo.

>You have alleged errors of 1 degree while measuring a change of 1 degree.
The change of 1.5 degrees occurred when the error range was much less than 1 degree. Do you seriously not know how to read a graph or are you pretending to be retarded?

>I call it unscientific because you can't ever test if the model works
What model?

>You have assumptions within assumptions of how some Oxygen isotope and tree ring density square with global temperatures.
Have you looked at the research on this? Of course not, you need it to be false so you assume it's false and there's no evidence. You just make shit up.

[Anonymous No.14832425]

>>14832369
>Modern soientists claim that their measurements were so wrong that they have to apply over 1 degree of cooling to them to make them fit the hockey stick.
Where did they claim this?

[Anonymous No.14832426]

>>14832369
What in the name of fuck are you babbling about?

[Anonymous No.14832577]

>>14832426
They are flooding the thread because they are terrified to discuss what Mandlbaur has uncovered.

[Anonymous No.14832591]

>>14828883
As always it's the fraudulent temperature anomaly term. Which basically means they are handed more money to take more measurements of the temperature which yields more measurements that depart from the average.

There is man made climate change, urban heat Island effect is real, cutting down forest for fields etc. CO2 warming is just a load of shit. It gets released from the oceans when it gets hotter.

Without burning fossil fuels the planta would be starving and by extension so would we.

[Anonymous No.14832592]

>>14832214
>Oh yes, you can. Just open any, literally any publication on that topic. They always have cross-validation and tests
Nope, you cant test any of this. Its strictly a hypothesis.
>I wouldn't call isotope fractionation an "assumption", that's really simple physics
Theres nothing simple about the climate. You dont have any tested model to correlate global temperatures and oxygen isotopes ratios on ice samples.
>>14832214
>Why? You can test this today. You can cut a tree and look at the rings 20 years ago when precise measurements were taken.
This is not a model of anything. You write "cut a tree and count" as if this is some model of global temperature. You are shilling a meme you dont understand.>>14832338
>The data says you're wrong
The alleged data is fake. >>14832423
>The change of 1.5 degrees occurred when the error range was much less than 1 degree.
The highest temperature allowed by the global warming hypothesis in the 1750s is higher than the lowest current global temperature, within the error margins. The graph you posted might as well indicate global cooling since 1750 as a possibility within the margin of error.
All meaningless of course because your measurements techniques cannot ne tested. Sure you can measure oxygen isotopes but you cant correlate that to global temperatures.

[Anonymous No.14832600]

>>14832425
Kek if you don't know this about climate models you should just go work at starbucks you simple simple fool

[Anonymous No.14832607]

>>14832600
Read the op, twit. It’s about consensus and what Mandlbaur uncovered. You are so terrified of discussing that so you babble nonsense. What the hell is wrong with you people?

[Anonymous No.14832608]

>>14832600
>I made this up but if I'm a dick about it they might not notice

[Anonymous No.14832635]

>>14831273

[Anonymous No.14832639]

>>14831189
>>14831211
>>14831280
>>14831295
So many questions left unanswered

[Anonymous No.14832657]

>>14832591
>fraudulent temperature anomaly term.
Proof?

>urban heat Island effect is real
But insignificant. See >>14829793

>CO2 warming is just a load of shit
It's directly observed.

https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/174407/

>Without burning fossil fuels the planta would be starving
Weird how they were doing fine before fossil fuels.

[Anonymous No.14832660]

Who would have thought that people could be so terrified to consider the possibility that they have made a mistake that they just keep on ignorantly making the same mistake when the solution is being held right up in front of their faces.
Literally blinded by insanity.
For years.
What the fuck is wrong with you?

[Anonymous No.14832667]

>>14832657
>But insignificant
Its not a random effect that cancels. It systematically pushes up temperature readings.
>>14832657
>Weird how they were doing fine before fossil fuels.
The sahel and gobi deserts are receding, there was less plant life before massive fossil fuel use

[Anonymous No.14832672]

WHATS WITH THE GREAT NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE SO DESPERATE TO COME TO 4CHAN TO DEFEND OFFICIAL MSM NARRATIVES?

[Anonymous No.14832683]

>>14832667
>It systematically pushes up temperature readings
Modern temperature readings are taken by satellites. Urban heating does not affect the temperature outside of the city.
>The sahel and gobi deserts are receding
I suppose you mean Sahara? Sahel is the region, not the desert. In that case: you couldn't be more wrong.
>The Sahara — the world’s biggest hot desert — is getting even bigger. In fact, it is currently about 10 percent larger than it was nearly a century ago, and scientists suggest that climate change is partly responsible.

[Anonymous No.14832685]

>>14832672
>WND (formerly WorldNetDaily)[3] is an American far-right[1] fake news website.[2] It is known for promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories,[26] including the false claim that former President Barack Obama was not born in the United States.[28]
WHATS WITH THE GREAT NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE SO DESPERATE TO COME TO 4CHAN TO DEFEND COMPLETELY MADE-UP NARRATIVES?

[Anonymous No.14832695]

>>14832683
>Modern temperature readings are taken by satellites
This is not real. Temperatures are taken at ground stations in cities, often just read from airports meteorological stations
>>14832683
>suppose you mean Sahara? Sahel is the region, not the desert
I meant the sahel you dumb brute.
All deserts are shrinking. Its a completely natural effect of more CO2.

[Anonymous No.14832706]

>>14832695
>Temperatures are taken at ground stations in cities, often just read from airports meteorological stations
That's bullshit. They even correct for that effect:
>GISTEMP also adjusts to account for the effects of urban heat islands, which are differences in temperatures between urban and rural areas.
Plus, they use satellites, believe it or not.
>I meant the sahel you dumb brute.
Please tell me you're simply larping as a global warming denier. Everything you say is wrong. Literally every word. I couldn't think of a way to make your posts more wrong.

[Anonymous No.14832709]

>>14832706
>adjusts
Nigga please. You either take a reading or not. All your data is fake and masaged to get you the desired number. You are so dishonest

[Anonymous No.14832717]

>>14832709
>You either take a reading or not
Tell me you never made it past high school without telling me you never made it past high school. How do you weigh your cat? Here's how I would do it: pick her up, stand on a scale and subtract my own weight from the reading. Correct it
>hurrdurr you either take a reading or you don't, your cat either weighs 80 kilos or you can't tell

[Anonymous No.14832720]

>>14832706
>Plus, they use satellites,
Satellites exist but you can't accurately measure temperatures with them unless its something obvious like some forest fire. You are trying to read minuscule fractions of a degree of warming, you cant with a satellite, you can't with some thermometer at an airport runway and you cant with tree rings. None of these methods have the sensitivity needed of <0.1 C°
Furthermore you are missing the point, that if global warming was as bad as claimed you would not have to haggle over statistical noise. The damage to the world would be obvious but so far nothing.

[Anonymous No.14832729]

>>14832717
Measuring a weight has an error. Measuring twice doubles the error. What you call an adjustment is doubling the error.
All your measurements are faked like that. You never measure a temperature, only the effects of alleged effects massaged by an algorithm to get you any number.

[Anonymous No.14832749]

>>14832706
>That's bullshit. They even correct for that effect:
no they don't
they place the thermometers in bad locations on purpose, which given them the opportunity to "correct" the data to fit their personal political agendas
climate scientist have a track record of refusing to work with genuine data which is now decades long
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

[Anonymous No.14832752]

>>14832729
>Measuring twice doubles the error.
lmao you either failed 8th grade or you're trolling. Kudos either way.
>You never measure a temperature, only the effects of alleged effects massaged by an algorithm to get you any number.
Do you believe in thermal cameras? Also, i guess it'll blow your mind to learn that thermometers don't measure the temperature directly. They measure the resistance of an electronic component. Old ones measure thermal expansion of a liquid. You need models to translate this into temperature, you know?

[Anonymous No.14832759]

>>14828883
We shouldn't focus at all on whether something is true or not true, just whether it produces useable results.

It doesn't matter whether the fact we are living in a simulation is true or not true because either way nothing changes and there's nothing we can do with knowledge of the correct answer.

Our understanding of gravity only matters because we can use it to build airplanes and advanced machines.

We should keep asking new questions and discovering new things because eventually as we go further and further things are going to stop adding up if we got something wrong in our consensus interpretation.

If angular momentum isn't actually conserved, either the fact is meaningless and changes nothing, or is does mean something and it will be discovered by physicists trying to research a better understanding of say knot physics or perhaps improve an artificial gravity machine.

[Anonymous No.14832768]

>>14832749
>The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and that no one was hiding or concealing them.[39]
So who exactly was tricked here?

[Anonymous No.14832778]

>>14832749
>Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[17] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.[18]
Why did you even link this article?

[Anonymous No.14832815]

>>14832706
Please tell me you're simply larping as a global warming denier.
It's "climate change" now. Keep up with the made up accurate descriptions.

>Everything you say is wrong. Literally every word. I couldn't think of a way to make your posts more wrong.
Now post another fancy graph that doesn't tell me what caused the temperature changes.

>>14832768
You. The EPA is tricking you into making changes that revolve around made up bullshit by still enforcing laws based around said bullshit.

>>14832729
>>14832752
You can measure the temperature until kingdom come. All it will ever tell you is a fucking number.

If you add insulation to a house whose heater is only capable of producing 70 degree output, will the temperature ever go above 70 degrees? No this is not a trick a question, but it's not going to stop some retards from getting it wrong despite the fact that the answer is in the question.

[Anonymous No.14832850]

>>14832815
>It's "climate change" now. Keep up with the made up accurate descriptions.
I'm not adopting the vocabulary of conservative grifters
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange

>If you add insulation to a house whose heater is only capable of producing 70 degree output, will the temperature ever go above 70 degrees? No this is not a trick a question
Cheers man, that's a good one. Normally trolls don't stop larping, but I consider this as "I was just trolling from the very beginning". Have a nice evening.

[Anonymous No.14832866]

>>14832752
>Measuring twice doubles the error.
>lmao you either failed 8th grade or you're trolling. Kudos either way.
What is so hard for you to understand? If a measure has an error of 1% then measuring twice will cause you an error of 2%. This is error compounding. Having a "complicated" method to measure something will only increase the error, not reduce the error.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propagation_of_uncertainty

[Anonymous No.14832872]

>>14832752
>Do you believe in thermal cameras
Thermal cameras suck ass compared to thermometers. You obviously have never used one in your life. I have, at work and you absolutely cannot rely on them

[Anonymous No.14832892]

>>14832872
> I have, at work and you absolutely cannot rely on them
Since you have no idea how heating works, what do you do for a living that involves thermal cameras? Are you a hunter maybe? Surely nothing that requires a brain.

[Anonymous No.14832897]

>>14832866
>What is so hard for you to understand? If a measure has an error of 1% then measuring twice will cause you an error of 2%.
So you're saying the more often I weigh myself on a scale, the less I know my weight? (Let's hide the fact that you don't know about quadratic addition)

[Anonymous No.14832908]

>>14828883
>the probability of something being true is rather high
No correlation at all.

[Anonymous No.14832931]

>>14832897
Step 1
>get on scale
>75kg +/- 100g
>do it 9 more times
>error is 10 times bigger
>wtf, is it 74kg? 76? I have no way of knowing
>do it 90 more times
>errors are now 100 times bigger
>+/-10kg
>do I weigh 65kg? Or 80? Fuck why did I blow up the errors so much

[Anonymous No.14832939]

>>14832931
The sand part is that you're not trolling. This is the average intelligence of nu/sci/.

[Anonymous No.14832940]

>>14832892
>Since you have no idea how heating works, what do you do for a living that involves thermal cameras
I use them to check on water chillers at banks of DC power supplies and to check on the power supplies themselves and won't dox myself with more detail. Suffice to say they have reported errors of +-2 degrees celcius in optimal conditions. Any glare from a shiny surface will throw off the reading. Using the camera outside of its optimal temperature range (of the camera itself) will throw off the reading. Having some gas (such as smoke or the atmosphere) between the camera and the target will absorb radiation and also create new radiation at different wavelengths which will mess up the desired reading of the ground temperature.
None of that shit is more accurate than a thermometer.
As to why i don't use a thermometer? Im measuring large temperature differences of over 10 degrees so i can live with the shittyness of an IR camera

[Anonymous No.14832950]

>>14832897
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propagation_of_uncertainty

[Anonymous No.14832963]

>>14832950
Why are you sending him wiki articles you absolutely don't comprehend? lol

[Anonymous No.14832977]

>>14832939
I'm just repeating what you're saying. I know it's bullshit obviously.

>>14832950
This directly contradicts the "measure twice and 1% becomes 2%" logic.

>>14832940
Actually interesting, all disagreement and trolls trolling trolls aside. I've also used thermal cameras at work, but only to identify hot spots in electronics. 2° don't make a difference there if most of a pcb is at 25° and one chip heats up to 80°.

>None of that shit is more accurate than a thermometer.
And yet that thermometer doesn't directly measure temperature, but resistance of a thermistor or platinum resistor or something. If you have an old-fashioned thermometer you measure the length of a column of liquid. My parents have one that measures the angle of a spiral that's probably some bimetal or something like that. Thermal cameras measure the thermal infrared radiation. All methods have their limitations, but if you know them, you know when you can use them and when you can't (like a reflective surface in which you suddenly see your own silhouette instead of the surface). Satellites are being used and they are well understood.

[Anonymous No.14832988]

>>14832592
>The alleged data is fake
Proof?

>The highest temperature allowed by the global warming hypothesis in the 1750s
You're confused. The graph doesn't show anything about "allowed by a hypothesis," it shows thermometer data.

>is higher than the lowest current global temperature, within the error margins.
So?

>The graph you posted might as well indicate global cooling since 1750 as a possibility within the margin of error.
It doesn't indicate anything prior to 1850. The data is too sparse. After 1850, it shows rapid warming. Figured out how to read a graph yet?

>All meaningless of course because your measurements techniques cannot ne tested
But they were. That's what Berkeley Earth was, a test of the temperature record. You're denying what's right in front of your face and making a fool of yourself.

>Sure you can measure oxygen isotopes but you cant correlate that to global temperatures.
Why not? Just see if they correlate. And it's not just correlation, the mechanism is well known. You just lie until you get BTFO and then move on to be lies.

[Anonymous No.14832994]

>>14832815
>global warming
winters are getting colder

[Anonymous No.14832995]

>>14832600
So you can't sue anyone ever claiming that. Why did you lie?

[Anonymous No.14832997]

>>14832897
When you measure yourself and yourself with your cat you are not measuring yourself twice. You get two numbers
>You with cat=74 kg+-100 grams
>You without cat =70 kg +-100 grans
You subtract the first value from the second, except you dont know these numbers accurately. You won't get an exact answer but a range of values.
Highest value=74.1-69.9=4.2 kg
Lowest estimate=73.9-70.1=3.8 kg.
So you can say the average weight for the cat is 4 kg. However it can be as high as 4.2 or as low as 3.8 kg. Thus while the scale error is +-100 grams your calculation has an error of +-200 grams.

[Anonymous No.14833003]

>>14832997
That's one fat cat

[Anonymous No.14833010]

>>14832667
>Its not a random effect that cancels
How does that effect reasons to what I said. Do you know what insignificant means?

>It systematically pushes up temperature readings.
It actually doesn't. Read the paper.

[Anonymous No.14833020]

>>14832997
That's not how you add independent uncertainties though.

[Anonymous No.14833021]

>>14832850
>I'm not adopting the vocabulary of conservative grifters
just the vocabulary of people who don't understand how energy works? Also your article explains your point how?


>Normally trolls don't stop larping
>A thought experiment based in reality is a larp
You're half right but I'm not playing a role. Am I supposed to so your replies make coherent sense or something?

>>14832994
Which is why I recommend he use the new newspeak "climate change". That way they can continue not explaining shit because they have a brand new fancy accurate description to peddle to news reporters as "science".

[Anonymous No.14833031]

>>14833021
But that thought experiment is nonsense. Its premise contradicts basic physics.
>Which is why I recommend he use the new newspeak "climate change".
What's the old newspeak? And do you support Bush or just his vocabulary?

[Anonymous No.14833037]

>>14833020
I gave you an explicit calculation of the range of values. If you have an actual counter point just say it explicitly.

[Anonymous No.14833042]

>>14833010
>Do you know what insignificant means?
Its not insignificant. The runway of a major airport is going to be much hotter than the national average.

[Anonymous No.14833052]

>>14832667
>The sahel and gobi deserts are receding
Another lie. How predictable.

https://www.footprintmag.net/chinas-decades-long-struggle-to-hold-back-the-desert/

https://earth.org/data_visualization/the-past-present-and-future-of-the-sahara-desert/

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/97w173fp

https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/chapter/chapter-3/

CO2 is not the only limiting factor for growth, especially in drought-prone areas. Plants are not "starved" of CO2, alarmist hypocrite.

[Anonymous No.14833054]

>>14833031
>But that thought experiment is nonsense. Its premise contradicts basic physics.
Does it? What is the conclusion? How could a heater possibly make it more hot than its maximum output?

>And do you support Bush or just his vocabulary?
Bush has nothing to do with the meaning of words or the use of words by a society that normalizes them. Perhaps when he was king puppet for 8 yeas in the US but "climate change" was terminology that came under King O block.

>What's the old newspeak?
How old we talking? You have "Global warming/cooling". Then you have "The Carbon Cycle". How long you want to go back before you realize there's no correlation between temperature and CO2 other than the one that is reified?

[Anonymous No.14833058]

>>14832695
>satellites aren't real
Uh oh, looks like we have a flat earther retard.

[Anonymous No.14833068]

>>14833054
>How could a heater possibly make it more hot than its maximum output?
Well, depends on the exact installation, do you have a thermostat (I don't)? Does your central heating heat the water to a certain temperature or does it run with a certain power (no idea here). If I'd insulate my apartment, it would get significantly warmer here. If your central unit adds constant power and the water comes back warmer from your warmer room, it would heat the water even more. But yeah if you'd just have a block that's always the same temperature, it can't get any warmer than this. However, you'd approach that temperature with better insulation.
>"climate change" was terminology that came under King O block.
Please read the article. The leaked memo is publicly available.

[Anonymous No.14833076]

>>14832709
>You either take a reading or not.
No, you take a reading and correct known errors in those readings.

>All your data is fake and masaged to get you the desired number.
Then why have the adjustments reduced the global warming trend? Your argument fails at step 1. You're projecting, the only one trying to reach the concussion they want is you, you have to ignore all data to get to it so that's what you do. You're pathetic.

[Anonymous No.14833081]

>>14833068
Well, depends on the exact installation,
No it depends on the fucking hater you dipshit. Congrats, even when warned you ended up being one of the retards who got it wrong.
If it goes to 70, no amount of thermodynamic geomancing bullshit, insulation or disingenuous braying with words is ever going to make it go past 70.

>If I'd insulate my apartment, it would get significantly warmer here
Not unless the gas gets shut off.

>If your central unit adds constant power and the water comes back warmer from your warmer room, it would heat the water even more.
No. Because water isn't going to boil past 212. It's all you're ever going to get out of it. Hot enough fortunately.

>However, you'd approach that temperature with better insulation.
To maintain the 70 degrees, yes. But it is never going past 70 no matter how much you add.

>Please read the article. The leaked memo is publicly available.
Listen here faggot. You're not polarizing me one side or the other. It doesn't matter who made the terminology, the terminology is bullshit with no explanation.

[Anonymous No.14833105]

>>14832720
>Satellites exist but you can't accurately measure temperatures with them unless its something obvious like some forest fire.
Because? All you do is say "you can't do that" with no evidence or reasoning. Meanwhile decades of research says they can. You have nothing.

>You are trying to read minuscule fractions of a degree of warming, you cant with a satellite, you can't with some thermometer at an airport runway
You can though. See >>14829793

>you cant with tree rings
Because?

>None of these methods have the sensitivity needed of <0.1 C°
Wrong, the thermometer record and satellite record do.

[Anonymous No.14833108]

>>14832720
>Furthermore you are missing the point, that if global warming was as bad as claimed you would not have to haggle over statistical noise
The only one doing that is you, and you're failing. The global warming signal is clear.

[Anonymous No.14833114]

>>14832749
>they place the thermometers in bad locations on purpose, which given them the opportunity to "correct" the data to fit their personal political agendas
Then why have the corrections lowered the global warming trend? How many times are you going to get caught lying?

[Anonymous No.14833119]

>>14832866
You're confused, measuring the same variable twice does not create more error,
It creates less. Propagation of error occurs in a calculation with multiple variables.

[Anonymous No.14833122]

>>14833105
Name a thermometer that gives an accurate temperature for a square mile.

[Anonymous No.14833126]

>>14832778
He has to BTFO himself on every post, it's a requirement in his clown contract.

[Anonymous No.14833137]

>>14832994
>winters are getting colder
Bizarre lie.

[Anonymous No.14833146]

>>14832994
>winters are getting colder
Bizarre lie

[Anonymous No.14833157]

>>14832997
You said measuring twice, not measuring different things. Another retard moment. Hope many is out going to take before you realize you don't belong here?

[Anonymous No.14833158]

>>14833042
>The runway of a major airport is going to be much hotter than the national average.
That runway will not even affect the temperature record. You still haven't read the paper. Are you afraid of reading?

[Anonymous No.14833161]

>>14833054
>How could a heater possibly make it more hot than its maximum output?
Oh great, it's the schizo who doesn't understand how insulation works.

[Anonymous No.14833171]

>>14833081
>If it goes to 70, no amount of thermodynamic geomancing bullshit, insulation or disingenuous braying with words is ever going to make it go past 70.
If it goes to 70, and then you add insulation where there wasn't any, it will go higher than 70. 70 is just the temperature reached when the amount of heat entering the system and leaving it is balanced. Make it harder for heat to leave the system and the temperature will increase. But you know this already.

[Anonymous No.14833180]

>>14828906
I'm sure if you browse this board you at least read some, but if it didn't make itself painfully clear pure scientific consensus doesn't make something true. There was scientific consensus on geocentrism and spontaneous generation for centuries, the former for a millennia in many places.

[Anonymous No.14833188]

>>14833122
>an accurate temperature for a square mile.
What does that even mean? Do you mean it represents the temperature in a square mile? It's a sample of that square mile, it doesn't give the temperature of every location in that square mile. Once again you avoided every question and moved onto another retarded argument.

[Anonymous No.14833189]

>>14828883
>On the one hand, consensus means that the probability of something being true is rather high
????????????
aham proof? or maybe some argument?
This is a science board

[Anonymous No.14833213]

>>14833180
How do you know either are false? Did you do any experiments yourself? You aren't just relying on what everyone agrees on and told you is true, right? That would be hypocritical.

[Anonymous No.14833235]

>>14831969
Your temperature measurements are subjective. Got any objective proof? Maybe some objective Truth to back up your global warming claims? (Nigger)

[Anonymous No.14833237]

>>14832039
Kapow!

[Anonymous No.14833239]

>>14832071
Some things that never happened are real, and some things that happened aren't real
>T. Holocaust Jew

[Anonymous No.14833289]

>>14829476
circumference is a big word for someone with a sub-75 IQ.

[Anonymous No.14833297]

>>14832149
Bingo. Check it....three cope responses of mental gymnastics posing as "scientific theorycrafting"....

And that's without even going into the fact that "temperature probes' placed in modern history are disproportionately in low precipitation areas known as historically hot areas bloating the average temperature data upwards.

[Anonymous No.14833309]

>>14831211
>summer
>cherrypicks a single month

[Anonymous No.14833312]

>>14832208
Radiometric dating assumes radioactive decay is constant, despite the fact that there is significant evidence to the contrary. As the universe expands, decay types which emit particles accelerate, while decay types which consolidate upwards slow. This has been proven in experimentation and the effects are exponentially compounded.

You don't even have a consistent universal constant. The light ladder method varies from the sonic method which varies from the cosmic background microwave method by a margin of +/-20%

[Anonymous No.14833379]

>>14833297
>And that's without even going into the fact that "temperature probes' placed in modern history are disproportionately in low precipitation areas known as historically hot areas bloating the average temperature data upwards.
This is hilarious. You think the global average can be biased to specific areas? It's a spacial average not a station average, so the more stations in an area, the less important each one is. Why do you open your mouth about a subject you know nothing about? Are you too dumb to realize how dumb you are?

[Anonymous No.14833384]

>>14833309
>avoids the question

[Anonymous No.14833390]

>>14833312
>despite the fact that there is significant evidence to the contrary
There isn't, just under extreme conditions that don't apply to anything dated radiometrically. You probably shouldn't get your scientific information from creationist blogs.

[Anonymous No.14833589]

>>14833390
A 50% expansion of the solar system, and a 33% decrease in mass density of Earth throughout the proposed arc timeline of the potassium-argon radiometric clock is insignificant?

You're fucking hilarious.

[Anonymous No.14833625]

>>14833589
>A 50% expansion of the solar system
Solar systems don't expand, gravity keeps them together. Where are you getting this crap?

>a 33% decrease in mass density of Earth throughout the proposed arc timeline
???

[Anonymous No.14833680]

>>14833146
>showing the 30s as cold
Bizarre lie

[Anonymous No.14833682]

>>14833625
Soientific consensus is that space expands. I know it's schizotypal but all of cosmology is like that.

[Anonymous No.14833713]

>>14833239
>good disinformation is true and not false
>that makes it even more dangerous

[Anonymous No.14833718]

>>14831280
The shape of Earth is not defined by consensus, its defined by it being fucking round. Evidence creates consensus, consensus doesn't create evidence. Why is that so hard to understand?

[Anonymous No.14833754]

>>14828906
those are incidentally true, independent of consensus. consensus does not verify them.
real scientists are introverts. extroverts aka parasites colonize their institutions and force 'consensus', possibly other grounds than truth.

[Anonymous No.14834149]

>>14833680
Not an argument. Where's your data?

[Anonymous No.14834155]

>>14833682
>Soientific consensus is that space expands
Space expands, galaxies do not. You don't even know the basics of what you're trying to talk about, lmao. Show us what blog you're parroting, you're not smart enough to come up with this quackery on your own.

[Anonymous No.14834161]

>>14833718
>The shape of Earth is not defined by consensus, its defined by it being fucking round.
No one said otherwise. How did you determine that the Earth is round? You did the measurements yourself, right? You didn't just accept what everyone already agreed on and told you was true, right? That would be embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.14834164]

>>14833754
>those are incidentally true, independent of consensus.
How do you know? The only reason you think they're true is because the consensus told you so and you accepted it.

[Anonymous No.14834194]

>>14829793
Hide the decline

[Anonymous No.14834205]

>>14834194
What do tree rings have to do with anything in that post?

https://skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htm

[Anonymous No.14834214]

>>14829798
>It's significant because stations have been removed since 1900.
How would that make it significant?

>More temperatures are coming from artificially warmed stations like airports and parking lots, and fewer from the countryside.
The average is not an average of stations, it's a spacial average. So it doesn't matter if there are more stations in one area. You don't even understand the basics of what you're trying to criticize. And artificially warmed stations don't even effect the record thanks to homogenization, which is proven by the paper in the past you're responding to, which you didn't even read.

>Most temperatures from these regions are now fully simulated, not actually taken by instruments.
Proof?

[Anonymous No.14834227]

>>14828883
Prediction markets solve this

[Anonymous No.14834448]

>>14828883
>On the one hand, consensus means that the probability of something being true is rather high
When you start with dogshit assumptions like this you have no hope of saying anything meaningful, much less correct.

[Anonymous No.14834473]

Peer review didn't exist before the late 1960s

[Anonymous No.14834498]

>>14828883
Ignaz Semmelweis had his career ruined because he discovered that disinfecting your hands before treating patients could reduce mortality. People back then did not believe in germ theory and they mocked his idea that washing your hands made any difference. He died alone in a mental asylum.
Scientific consensus doesn't matter; the only thing that matters is whether something works or not.
Climate science is not even science since it can't be falsified (kinda like cosmology). You can't run a controlled experiment to see how Earth's climate would have evolved without human industrial activity involving fossil fuels. We know from indirect evidence (like analysis of ice cores) that Earth's climate is not fixed in stone and it showed great variation even in pre-industrial times. Nobody really knows why this is so, and it is maybe linked to solar activity or whatever. At any rate, the conclusion is that we don't really know what affects the climate and blaming everything on fossil fuels with blind religious faith in the correctness of this hypothesis is not science; it's just propaganda.

[Anonymous No.14834513]

>>14834473
Peer review is nothing but confirmation bias as most academic fields are inbred and everyone supports everyone else's claims since they were all educated in the same way and all share the same core beliefs.
This has always been especially evident in the social sciences were irreproducible results were affirmed times and again simply on the basis of authority without any real testing.
Medicine is not much different and a lot of "peer-reviewed" studies are false or just plain made-up but nobody bothers to check and they just take them as true on faith.

https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/07/05/time-to-assume-that-health-research-is-fraudulent-until-proved-otherwise/

[Anonymous No.14834883]

>>14834498
>Scientific consensus doesn't matter
How do you know Semmelweiss is correct? Have you done the experiments yourself? Or do you accept the consensus?

>Climate science is not even science since it can't be falsified (kinda like cosmology).
Of course it can, it makes predictions and is based on empirical observations.

>You can't run a controlled experiment to see how Earth's climate would have evolved without human industrial activity involving fossil fuels.
You can, just stop emitting fossil fuels and see what happens. You don't need to though, you can directly observe the warming from CO2: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/174407/

>Nobody really knows why this is so
Climatologists do. You don't because you never even tried to find out.

>At any rate, the conclusion is that we don't really know what affects the climate and blaming everything on fossil fuels with blind religious faith in the correctness of this hypothesis is not science; it's just propaganda.
It's proven by decades of research. You're in denial of reality.

[Anonymous No.14834885]

>>14834214
>How would that make it significant?
Reduces cool stations in the average, causing artificial warming,

[Anonymous No.14834890]

>>14834883
>How do you know Semmelweiss is correct? Have you done the experiments yourself? Or do you accept the consensus?
Yes actually. I'm experienced with the kind of large-scale hospital protocol trials that determine these guidelines.

Do you know anything about the climate or do you just trust what the government says?

[Anonymous No.14834894]

>>14834473
Amazing, Oldenburg traveled 300 years into the future and invented peer review.

>Henry Oldenburg (also Henry Oldenbourg) FRS (c. 1618 as Heinrich Oldenburg – 5 September 1677) was a German theologian, diplomat, and natural philosopher, known as one of the creators of modern scientific peer review.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Oldenburg

[Anonymous No.14834906]

>>14834513
>Peer review is nothing but confirmation bias
So you're saying peer review cannot find mistakes in papers? Why not?

[Anonymous No.14834907]

>>14828883
If you can't reproduce it yourself, you shouldn't trust it at all. Even so, grain of salt on your own results

[Anonymous No.14834909]

>>14834906
Because observational evidence suggests it does not find mistakes in papers the editors are ideologically motivated to accept.

[Anonymous No.14834912]

>>14834885
>Reduces cool stations in the average
The average is not an average of stations, it's a spacial average. If there was some artificial warming trend, the trend would be different in high quality long term stations, but it's not. Read the papers: >>14829793

[Anonymous No.14834919]

>>14834890
>I'm experienced with the kind of large-scale hospital protocol trials that determine these guidelines.
I didn't ask if you're experienced with a kind of experiment, I asked if you've actually done the experiments proving Semmelweiss correct. Of course you never have since these experiments haven't been done in a hundred years. There's no need to. Medical science has moved on. You only complain about the consensus you don't like, all others you accept blindly. I guess consensus matters.

>Do you know anything about the climate
Evidently much more than you do.

[Anonymous No.14834925]

>>14834909
I have personally found mistakes in papers i have peer reviewed and agreed with the results, so your argument is nonsense. Mistakes are found in papers all the time, regardless of whether they agree with the consensus.

[Anonymous No.14834931]

>>14828906
>There's consensus that the Earth is older than 6000 years
The evidence for the opposite is strong though
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_trees

[Anonymous No.14834941]

>>14834155
Actually, all of space expands, including the space between molecules, and the space between a neutron/proton and the electrons orbitting it. ALL space expands, dumbass. Even the space between quarks and gluons n shit expands. This has a noted effect on time dilation as well as radiometric decay. You're a fucking retard. The only argument that contemporary science has against this is an attempt to downplay and diminish the profound effect this has overall, claiming the 1% acceleration of radiometric decay is not substantial enough to drastically effect the timeline, while refusing to acknowledge it is a compounded effect.

You're not even parrotting the official retort, dumbfuck. You're literally just responding with words pulled directly out of your ass.

Look it up, faggot. The only thing contemporary science says is....yes this happens, but "we don't think" it's a big deal overall; that's it.

[Anonymous No.14834961]

>>14834941
Wanna know "WHY" it happens? Because as "space" and "expands" the vacuum of space intensifies.

Nature abhors a vacuum, and when the vacuum of space approaches the planck limit it literally pulls subatomic particles and atomic particles further apart in the attempt to reassert equilibrium. This is also why "space" has a temperature; it has shit in it; it's not a pure vacuum stupid fucking retards. Obtaining a pure vacuum runs up against the same issues as cooling something to absolute zero, or exceeding the speed of light. They're all planck-limited.

[Anonymous No.14834967]

>>14834919
>I didn't ask if you're experienced with a kind of experiment, I asked if you've actually done the experiments proving Semmelweiss correct. Of course you never have since these experiments haven't been done in a hundred years. There's no need to. Medical science has moved on. You only complain about the consensus you don't like, all others you accept blindly. I guess consensus matters.
Interventions around different types of sanitation are done regularly, actually. It's not usually published but hospitals will do pilot projects for cost-savings. When I say familiar I mean I've analyzed data for these projects to determine their success or failure.

[Anonymous No.14834974]

>>14834961
These fucking retards think there's actually permanence in this universe and that things they want to stay the same stay the same while literally everything else doesn't stay the same.

It hilarious how many of those who call themselves a scientist in this age actually believe this paradoxical connundrum, and proves without a doubt, they are dogmatic zealots.
>Nothing stays the same...not a single thing. Not decay, not the size of the universe, not planetary diameter, not the sun, not even space remains the same over the epoch of time. Nothing. No-thing.

[moronfag !!zvLqeK4GQhl No.14834976]

>>14828883
what the fuck did you just say you little bitch?
i believe in bill nye and dr fauci

[Anonymous No.14834993]

>>14834498
Te greenhouse effect is a thoroughly understood and measured phenomenon

[Anonymous No.14835011]

>>14834993
The inputs of energy into the earth's open system are almost completely unknown. Modern climate "science" assumes that the easiest to experiment phenomenon is the only one that exists, and runs with it as the cause of 100% of earth's warming despite observational evidence to the contrary.

[Anonymous No.14835031]

>>14834941
>Actually, all of space expands, including the space between molecules, and the space between a neutron/proton and the electrons orbitting it. ALL space expands, dumbass.
What part of "space expands, galaxies do not" do you not understand? Where does that say space doesn't expand?

>This has a noted effect on time dilation
No, it's only noticeable between very distant objects that are not pulled together by gravity. There's no cosmological time dilation between molecules. Quack.

>as well as radiometric decay.
No.

>The only argument that contemporary science has against this
The argument is "gravity exists." Good luck defeating it.

>claiming the 1% acceleration of radiometric decay
Which you have yet to provide any evidence for.

>You're not even parrotting the official retort, dumbfuck. You're literally just responding with words pulled directly out of your ass.
LOL, major projection.

>Look it up
I did, the only thing remotely close to your nonsense is on something called Creation Wiki. lmao

[Anonymous No.14835042]

>>14835011
Why do you lie thinking that no one’s going to call you out?
>and runs with it as the cause of 100% of earth's warming
No one says this. The contributions of different sources have been quantified

[Anonymous No.14835048]

>>14835011

[Anonymous No.14835053]

>>14834961
>Wanna know "WHY" it happens? Because as "space" and "expands" the vacuum of space intensifies.
Nothing happens to the "vacuum" inside galaxies. Gravity keeps everything together. Nothing you've said even responds to this. Dumb schizo.

[Anonymous No.14835057]

>>14835031
>No, it's only noticeable between very distant objects that are not pulled together by gravity. There's no cosmological time dilation between molecules. Quack

Electrons always travel at "c", yet due to ohmic resistance (collision with phonons) current is "slowed" an impossible feat unless timespace was being generated within the circuit.
>Dismissed

[Anonymous No.14835061]

>>14835053
You're a retarded nigger.

[Anonymous No.14835068]

>>14834161
Trust/faith that something is true is also not consensus. You're just an idiot trying to find "gotchas" to feel smart. The consensus is that you are retarded.

[Anonymous No.14835082]

it is impossible to make a perfect vacuum. A perfect vacuum is defined as a region in space without any particles.

The problem is that to maintain a vacuum in a region you have to shield it from the environment. It is not difficult to make a container that would prevent atoms from entering the region.

The first problem is that the container itself will radiate photons (which in turn can create electron positron pairs in the vacuum) if it is not kept at a temperature of 0K. Note that a perfect vacuum has by definition a temperature of 0K. reaching 0K is impossible.

The second problem is that there are weakly interacting particles that could enter the region. No matter how thick the walls of the container are, there is always a finite probability that, say, a neutrino would enter the region

>It is impossible to create a perfect vacuum, and approaching a perfect vacuum requires the same exponentially increasing effort that bring a mass to "c" does. It would require all of the energy in the universe to accomplish.

Thus, by space expanding, it is placing increasing equilibrium forces on all matter causing it to expand the orbits of everything, including electrons and even neutron clouds.

You're just wrong bro. Maybe go suck your professors dick some more and he'll clue you in.

Captcha: shagn

[Anonymous No.14835090]

>>14835031
Gravity "fights" against the vacuum of space's desire to reach mass-density-equilibrium dumbass. It is in constant battle with the equilibrium constant of space's vacuum, moron. This is what is referred to as "entropy"; it's a concept introduced in middle school and high school physics classes in case you missed it.

[Anonymous No.14835096]

>>14835031
>Scientific experimentation
Step1:
Create any intensity of vacuum with the seal facing downward.
Step2:
Un-seal the vacuum.
Step3:
Note that what was previously a vacuum reaches equilibrium with the surrounding atmosphere despite gravity.

>You're welcome.

[Anonymous No.14835102]

>>14835096
Note that you can do this experiment at any distance from earth still within Earth's gravitational field, and it still reaches equilibrium with the surrounding atmosphere conditions no matter how vacuous that surrounding atmosphere is

[Anonymous No.14835542]

[Anonymous No.14835550]

>>14835082
ur mum pretty good at vaccum with her mouth LOL

[Anonymous No.14835839]

>>14835057
>Electrons always travel at "c"
They never travel at c, since they have mass. The rest of your gibberish doesn't even have to be refuted since it rests on this lie. Take your meds.

[Anonymous No.14835842]

>>14835061
Not an argument, thanks for admitting your a dumb schizo.

[Anonymous No.14835845]

>>14835068
>Trust/faith that something is true is also not consensus.
Non sequitur. You blindly trust the consensus until it disagrees with your preconceived beliefs, then suddenly consensus becomes meaningless. You're a hypocrite.

[Anonymous No.14835853]

>>14835082
>Thus, by space expanding, it is placing increasing equilibrium forces on all matter causing it to expand the orbits of everything, including electrons and even neutron clouds.
Where are you getting this word salad? You're not smart enough to come up with it on your own.

[Anonymous No.14835855]

>>14835090
>Gravity "fights" against the vacuum of space's desire to reach mass-density-equilibrium
Gibberish. Gravity prevents galaxies from expanding. Why did you lie about expansion affecting anything inside galaxies?

[Anonymous No.14835858]

>>14835096
And your point?

[Anonymous No.14835863]

>>14835102
And how does this show expansion affects anything inside galaxies? You sound mentally ill.

[Anonymous No.14835870]

>>14835853
Modern cosmology is indistinguishable from schizophrenia.

[Jealous No.14835871]

>>14835870

[Anonymous No.14835903]

>>14835870
You're confusing your insane ramblings with modern cosmology. Take your meds.

[Anonymous No.14835920]

>>14828883
>consensus means that the probability of something being true is rather high
when are you going to hang yourself to atone for being so stupid?

[Anonymous No.14835925]

>>14835871
they're not that different, its only a 50 decimal place discrepancy

[Anonymous No.14837109]

>>14833171
>If it goes to 70, and then you add insulation where there wasn't any, it will go higher than 70

>>14835031
>What part of "space expands, galaxies do not" do you not understand?
The part where "space" has the properties to do such a thing.

[Anonymous No.14837758]

>>14837109
Thanks for admitting your have no argument and insulation increases temperature.