/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5797120]

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-billionaires-secretly-fund-attacks-on-climate-science-8466312.html
Brtish news journal, The Independent, released a news article Thursday describing some of the links between Charles Koch and coffers which support attacks on credible climate science. Most of these links are never revealed directly; however it seems that The Independent researched various auditing resources to describe these links. Just part of these revelations are described here:
The Donors Trust, along with its sister group Donors Capital Fund, based in Alexandria, Virginia, is funnelling millions of dollars into the effort to cast doubt on climate change without revealing the identities of its wealthy backers or that they have links to the fossil fuel industry.
However, an audit trail reveals that Donors is being indirectly supported by the American billionaire Charles Koch who, with his brother David, jointly owns a majority stake in Koch Industries, a large oil, gas and chemicals conglomerate based in Kansas.
Millions of dollars has been paid to Donors through a third-party organisation, called the Knowledge and Progress Fund, with is operated by the Koch family but does not advertise its Koch connections.

[Anonymous No.5797125]

I post this on /pol/
they ignored it and the thread was just
>Al Gore, some graph, edgy nihilism

[Anonymous No.5797131]

Hardly surprising.

[Anonymous No.5797141]

For the last fucking time, it's not a secret if I know about it.

It's like history documentaries that say things were "previously undiscovered" when that shit is obvious by the fact that it's a broken bone sticking out of dirt with some guy brushing it.

[Anonymous No.5797143]

Next you're gonna tell me christian fundamentalists fund attacks on evolution science.

[Anonymous No.5797148]

To me it is obvious all along they can funnel however much money they want into this the major factor that will turn people away from fossil fuels isnt the climate change but the growing cost. I hope that by then at least it isnt to late.

I went on /Pol/ wishing to discuss novel economic strategies adopted after the burst of the financial bubble by western governments.

All i got was insults about Jews stealing money and people of african american descent being paid by the wellfare system.

i think everyone on Pol is 15 years old with no idea on the real world.

[Anonymous No.5797152]

>>5797148
It's hilarious. I'd be upset if /pol/ disappeared.

[Anonymous No.5797151]

>>5797148
>All i got was insults about Jews stealing money and people of african american descent being paid by the wellfare system.
How on earth could you not have seen that coming fifty miles away?

[Anonymous No.5797157]

>>5797141
well its one thing to mathematically determine that the world is round
its another to sail right around it

we can deduce where the financing for denial is coming from simply by asking who would suffer short term profit losses
but this is evidential material, the sort of thing you reference in a paper
or cite as evidence in a court case

[Anonymous No.5797172]

>OP still thinks that this world belongs to everyone

>Mfw the world is owned by a defined group of people, and everyone else is a slave of some varying degree: (Wage slave-SLAVE slave)

And the only reason we think we are free is because we have been given the comfortablility of the life we can afford with our slavery wages.,

[Anonymous No.5797243]

>>5797120
I need to find these people, I'd lobby against climate change for a good money...

[Anonymous No.5797258]

>>5797157
Climate science is so deeply politicized that it is damn hard to know what to trust. To think the deniers side is the only side twisting the hell out of everything is a mistake of the highest order.

[Anonymous No.5797260]

>>5797258
97% of Climate Scientists agree that Climate change is happening and Humanity is the driving force.

Of the other 3%, the majority agree that climate change is happening, but not caused by humanity.

The rest are too fucking stupid to categorise, except by 'fucking stupid'.

[Anonymous No.5797264]

>>5797148
/pol/ is a shitposting board, not a politics board, if you were confused.

[Anonymous No.5797266]

>>5797260
Who do you think gets the money? Those who "prove" it driven by man or those.against that view?

Grant money is led by interest. Lrn2academia.

[Anonymous No.5797274]

>>5797266
Money =/= reality.

You may have the most money, but the facts are on the other side.

If you are a scientist, that matters.

[Anonymous No.5797278]

>>5797266
Dumb shit. Money isn't provided on the basis of the outcome of a particular line of research. By definition the outcome is unknown when a grant is awarded. By contract the financing institution has no say over the outcome of the investigation.

[Anonymous No.5797280]

>>5797274
Funny coming from a board that prides itself on rigor in science this wholesale buying of a science even more fuzzy than psychology...

[Anonymous No.5797284]

>>5797280

97% say "I'll stick with provable evidence rather than take your cash"

That is an example of Ethical rigourous Integrity.

[Anonymous No.5797286]

>>5797278
Keep thinking that.

[Anonymous No.5797289]

>>5797284
Umm, you realize far more.cash comes from liberals on this topic, right?

[Anonymous No.5797298]

>>5797289

Yes and 97% is a statistically significant majority. You can bet that there are people who want to prove this wrong, and the money just doesn't get them there.

Science will out, because fundamentally, it is only interested in the facts, or how to get to the facts. All else is something 'not Science'.

[Anonymous No.5797300]

>>5797286
I know that because I do research myself. Take of your tin foil hat, because frankly, it looks ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.5797302]

>>5797289
you do realize that the idea of climate change has been around long before major funding on the topic was, right?

[Anonymous No.5797304]

>>5797298
>statistically significant
I don't think that's the term you want.

[Anonymous No.5797309]

>>5797304
we all know the jokes about statistics, but if taken straight up as a measurement of points of view = validity of the null hypothesis, 97% is significant. It is the Dominant Hypothesis with virtually no variance.

[Anonymous No.5797329]

>>5797309
at least psychologists are taught correlation is not causation, which is the error that climate science makes all the time.

[Anonymous No.5797340]

>>5797329
psychiatrists are measuring correlation of observer-opinion-based hypothesis. Observing climate (measurements) is based on measuring phenomenon outside of the observers opinion.

Phenomenon>measure>theorise>prove

vs

Phenomenon>Theorise>Throw drugs at it> '..mmm what do you think?...'

[Anonymous No.5797349]

>>5797329
>which is the error that climate science makes all the time.
Just stop pressing those buttons on your keyboard. Really. It's for the best.

[Anonymous No.5797354]

>>5797309
I'm not saying there isn't a statistically significant majority of climate scientists who agree with the global warming theory, I'm saying you are definitely using the term incorrectly.

[Anonymous No.5797358]

>>5797354

Demonstrate on the board please....

[Anonymous No.5797360]

>rich people influence corporate owned media in 'free market' nation to protect their riches

so what's new

[Anonymous No.5797440]

>>5797329
>2013
>Still not understanding molecular absorption bands

Go kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.5797455]

>>5797360

What's really new here is the presence of a pervasive citizen media system called the Internet, which can oppose such corruption. And yet it's doing little if anything. Humans really are the dumbest higher life form, ever.

[Anonymous No.5797533]

>>5797440
I understand them, what I also understand is that there are other explanations that fit existing data just as well as the climate change bandwagon, but they are ignored.

We are finding evidence of what conditions might have been (notice the qualifier) and are jumping to a predefined conclusion from that data.

You all seem to be missing the fact that there is a massive number of interpretations and assumptions in climate sciences. A cursory glance of the research that is out there will show you that and a rigorous review will prove it. No one wants to do this because it literally is professional suicide. Truly respected and respectable scientists avoid the entire field like the plague because it is dominated by crusaders and zealots on both sides while being fueled by political interest.

I honestly cannot believe that y'all are this hardcore in deluding yourselves.

[Anonymous No.5797540]

>>5797455
'wahhwahhhhumanzsux' cried anon, using the internet to post on an anonymous image board while completely oblivious of his idiocy.

[Anonymous No.5797547]

>>5797533
So far you haven't actually showed us anything whatsoever that backs up your claims. There's a massive amount of evidence, and scientific consensus on the one hand, and there are empty claims on the other. And you call us deluded.

>there is a massive number of interpretations and assumptions in climate sciences. A cursory glance of the research that is out there will show you that
This for instance. Show it to us.

Also, this (if you are the same poster, which I suspect):
>at least psychologists are taught correlation is not causation, which is the error that climate science makes all the time.
Give us an example.

[Anonymous No.5797555]

>>5797125
>expecting good discussion on /pol/
Well there's your problem.

[Anonymous No.5797559]

>>5797266
>Those who "prove" it driven by man or those.against that view?
If someone could demonstrate, using solid research methods and good data, that climate change theory was flawed, they'd be ROLLING in grant money.

The problem is, the only people who have even tried to refute climate change theory have used fundamentally flawed methods and made some very poor assumptions and just showed a lack of understanding of the field in general.

[Anonymous No.5797566]

>>5797329
>at least psychologists are taught correlation is not causation, which is the error that climate science makes all the time.
You don't understand scientific research.

Correlative evidence is the bread and butter of research. Science as we know it would not exist without correlative evidence.

The phrase you're looking for is "correlation does not imply causation", and that phrase is only true for the strict logical definition of "implies", which can be considered to be equivalent to "proves".

The common-day usage of "implies" is "suggests", and correlation absolutely suggests causation.

The primary task for every scientist is to construct an experiment such that causation is the only reasonable explanation for observed correlation.

[Anonymous No.5797567]

>>5797329
If there is a local mechanism connecting the cause and effect (in this case, the Greenhouse effect), then it's acceptable to use correlation as evidence. We're not correlating two completely unrelated variable, here, we're correlating two variables involved in a very well-understood phenomena. To imply that correlation cannot imply causation is fallacy.

[Anonymous No.5797568]

>>5797533
>what I also understand is that there are other explanations that fit existing data just as well as the climate change bandwagon,
no, there really aren't

[Anonymous No.5797570]

>>5797143

>Use to go on /pol/.
>Started to realize that it might just be a board for people to have a circlejerk bitchfit instead of actually discussing politics.
>First start a thread about how Obama's Administration (literally happened weeks ago) was arguing that they should have executive power to start wars anywhere on the pretexts of 9/11 and "muh terrorism". http://m.democracynow.org/stories/13648
>About 30 replies most only achieved by the occasional self-bump.
>Post picture related, obvious troll image made from two different profiles.
>300 posts of bickering flawlessly.

[Anonymous No.5797575]

>>5797533
>that there are other explanations that fit existing data just as well as the climate change bandwagon, but they are ignored.
Tell us which explanations. Please, I'd be interested to know.

For the love of God though, please don't say solar activity or volcanoes.

[Anonymous No.5797582]

>>5797547
But you won't do any of that. You'll just keep believing and keep believing that politics has nothing to do with research into the problem (which, I do fully believe what's going on is a problem, but I also don't believe we have any handle on why what is happening is happening and therefore don't know if we can/can't do anything about it, much less what is the best thing to do).
>>5797566
You really need to learn the power of statistical analyses (and yes, there are some techniques which can imply causation from correlation such as a time-delay, but correlations in such cases cannot remove other possible causative factors).
>>5797575
Natural cycles. No one has yet to prove mankind has a significant impact on climate or even what the source of our impact is. We're on the earth's 4th atmosphere and don't know what the lifecycle of such actually is.

[Anonymous No.5797586]

>>5797582
Damn, didn't get all of that when I copied,
anyway:
>>5797547
No, I'm not going to provide you with anything. You should already be looking into it yourself. You should already know the weaknesses and approach it with the cynics glasses. You should already have checked out the money trails, looked at who gets their research funded and from whom. There is a shitton of money in this coming in from both sides and no one who is legitimately respectable is willing to wade into the mess with any substantive commentary on what's happening because it would be professional suicide.

Hell, did you even bother looking at any of the stolen CRU emails?
(was more, but this is the gist of it)

[Anonymous No.5797590]

>>5797582
>You really need to learn the power of statistical analyses (and yes, there are some techniques which can imply causation from correlation such as a time-delay, but correlations in such cases cannot remove other possible causative factors).
It's really cute how you think you know what you're talking about.

Go read about the Hill causation critera and get back to me.

And if you want to dickwave I could tell you about all the courses I've taken and advanced statistics texts I've read for my research.

[Anonymous No.5797594]

>>5797586
>Hell, did you even bother looking at any of the stolen CRU emails?
Did YOU even bother reading the CRU emails?

You know what those emails really said? Do you know what the "nature trick" and "hiding the decline" actually meant?

Because of warming conditions, several proxy temperature reconstructions based on tree ring data had become unreliable. They knew the data had become unreliable because they had direct temperature measurements to compare to for that time period.

So when it came time to graph their data, they replaced the proxy reconstruction data they knew was bad with direct temperature measurements.

Wow it's fucking nothing.

[Anonymous No.5797606]

>>5797586
>Hell, did you even bother looking at any of the stolen CRU emails?
Confirmed for easily riled up layman.

[Anonymous No.5797609]

>>5797533
>I understand them

wtf?
obviously not. greenhouse effect is a natural phenomenon occuring on many planets (like ours).

and about the research you obviously don't know shit. the climatologists at my lab next door don't seem so dead and their lectures do make sense too.

Also show us these other interpretations if you're that enlightened.

[Anonymous No.5797610]

>>5797590
fear the fury of dragons, peasants!

[Anonymous No.5797626]

>>5797590
And with correlations you're still not definitively linking two factors in a causal relationship because it cannot eliminate a possible cause not being examined. I don't care what courses you've taken because this fact is unalterable.
>>5797594
Annnd I wasn't referring to that. I was referring to things like them flat out blocking contrary research from entering an IPCC report, talk of ostracizing/getting fired critics, and directly talking about how they needed to delete emails/keep emails secret/worry over there being something like the Freedom of Information Act in the UK.

[Anonymous No.5797641]

>>5797626
>And with correlations you're still not definitively linking two factors in a causal relationship because it cannot eliminate a possible cause not being examined. I don't care what courses you've taken because this fact is unalterable.
You're missing the point, and this is why I say you don't understand scientific research. "Definitively linking" is impossible for science to EVER do. Science cannot prove things definitively. Science is about induction and inference, and even the most rock-solid evidence we have from any realm of science is nothing more than inductive, correlative evidence that it would be unreasonable to doubt.

All scientific research is correlative at some level. All of it. A lot of it LOOKS like it's deductive, not inductive, but on a philosophical and a practical level, that's just not the case.

[Anonymous No.5797646]

Aren't Kochs' net worth like 100 billion dollars? I wonder what they do with all that money

[Anonymous No.5797649]

>>5797641
And despite your "education" you seem to not know what the difference between a correlative study and an experimental study is.

[Anonymous No.5797655]

>>5797649
Experimental studies cannot definitively prove anything. They can provide correlative evidence which it would be unreasonable to doubt, but cannot prove in a logical sense that any fact or assertion is true.

Correlative studies operate under the same rules that experimental studies do, it's just that the standards of evidence for concluding (and I emphasize again, CONCLUDING) causation are much higher.

This isn't just my opinion, you know. There's plenty of cases in the scientific record where correlative evidence was used to conclude that causation was a factor. The link between tobacco smoking and lung cancer is a very good example - we knew, thanks to epidemiological evidence, that tobacco smoking can be a major cause of lung cancer decades before we had good laboratory evidence of that link.

[Anonymous No.5797656]

>>5797641
>"Definitively linking" is impossible for science to EVER do.
And then there's this guy.

[Anonymous No.5797659]

>>5797656
>basic principles of falsification are sage-worthy
This is when you know that /sci is going to shit

[Anonymous No.5797765]

>>5797540

I didn't say Humans suck, so much as they aren't living up to the obvious potential of their neural hardware. Merely pushing people to attain a 10 average increase in the IQ peak, would remarkably better the race.

Too bad most people confuse money with merit.

[Anonymous No.5797769]

>>5797646

Thay do what essentially all rich people do: Play a game of increasing their stake. That's all.

[Anonymous No.5797801]

>>5797586
>No, I'm not going to provide you with anything.
So in other words, you have jack shit to contribute to a discussion. If you really think all of us are wrong, and you solely understand more about climate science than we do, you should share it. Don't stick to vague horse shit statements like referring to a non-scandal.

[Anonymous No.5797942]

>>5797769
>increasing their stake.
Why, what's the point of holding onto such a large sum of money if they are not going to use it? Are they insane?

[Anonymous No.5797969]

>>5797655

researcher: hey guise, we just did this experiment where we found a new subatomic particle!

plebfaggot: yeah, but you didn't definitively prove it exists!

That's what you sounds like right now.

[Anonymous No.5797976]

>>5797969
That's exactly how it happens, anon. Did you not pay attention during the Higgs Boson announcements?

>researchers have theoretical model predicting particle of certain mass
>researchers detect particle with predicted mass, but there's not enough evidence for the conclusion to be very solid
>researchers collect data until it would be unreasonable to assume the evidence is just random chance

[Anonymous No.5797980]

>>5797942

Yes, of course they're insane. Surely this can't be news to you. Those who accumulate money just to die with the biggest 'score' are mentally ill.

[Anonymous No.5797985]

>>5797942

And there's even more conclusive evidence that very rich people are uniformly insane: They spend their time and money just playing with money, instead of working on immortality. Life's the only thing that's important. Period. All the money in the world won't help you when you die. So the billionaires should be working daily on extending their lifespans.

But the billionaires aren't doing that. They're dying in their 80s and 90s like healthy poor people do. That PROVES that the very rich are fundamentally nuts.

[Anonymous No.5797990]

>>5797976

I was hoping someone would be dumb enough to say that and imply it was true for every circumstance.

Now replace the word particle with unverified substance of interest.

[Anonymous No.5797992]

>>5797990
Are you saying my response was dumb or that >>5797969 was dumb?

[Anonymous No.5797995]

>>5797985
I pity you.