/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9299864]

Should having bizarre scientific views be considered psychosis? What's the difference between "aliens are stalking me" and "climate change isn't real"?

[Anonymous No.9299873]

>>9299864
Climate change while real may not be caused solely by man made processes.

Similarly, most of the worlds radiation in the ocean is naturally larger than the two current nuclear disasters input.

[Anonymous No.9299883]

What's the difference between "stupid frog poster" and "OP is a faggot"?

[Anonymous No.9299886]

climate change is used to push a political agenda which makes it suspicious, aliens not so much

[Anonymous No.9299917]

>>9299883
>>9299886

nice alternative facts there

[Anonymous No.9300062]

>>9299864
The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.
-Black Science Man

[Anonymous No.9300092]

>>9299864
Nobody is spending millions on propaganda to make people think aliens are stalking them.

[Anonymous No.9300172]

>>9299917
>Here's some "alternative facts"
Climate change studies do not account for solar activity
Same studies do not take fluctuations in the magnetosphere into account
Plants grow more when there are higher levels of CO2
Meteorological data does not square up with the assertations of climate scientists
OP is a faggot

[Anonymous No.9300203]

>>9299864
No, because delusions or false beliefs don't automatically imply psychosis.

[Anonymous No.9300593]

>>9299864
climate was changing on its own for 4 billion years, i dont think that ants we are are able to meaningfully influence system that existed on its own for billions of years before we fucking existed.

[Anonymous No.9300637]

>>9300092
>Nobody is spending millions on propaganda to make people think aliens are stalking them.
The government does this. The Disclosure project is an obvious psyop.

[Anonymous No.9300642]

>>9299864
because you can only forcefully commit people for being psychotic, not for having views you disagree with.

[Anonymous No.9300774]

>>9300062
>it's true
"Go philosophise with him, Bill"
"All we are is dust in the wind, dude."

[Anonymous No.9300782]

>>9300203
Which is a shame, given how many people voted Trump. So much easier to section them all rather than try and explain to them why they are retards.

[Anonymous No.9300785]

>>9299864
>believe in santa claus
>get put on antipsychotics
This is the future you chose

[Anonymous No.9300809]

>>9299886
Facts are often used for political agendas. Climate change denial is a political agenda without facts.

>>9300172
>Climate change studies do not account for solar activity
Completely, utterly false. See pic.

>Same studies do not take fluctuations in the magnetosphere into account
Also false: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C31&q=magnetosphere+climate+change&btnG=

>Plants grow more when there are higher levels of CO2
False. Plants grow more when there are higher levels of CO2 AND all other growth factors are provided. In reality, increasing CO2 causes more droughts, which decreases plant growth since water is most often the limiting factor.

>Meteorological data does not square up with the assertations of climate scientists
How does it not "square up"?

Your alternative facts are simply lies.

[Anonymous No.9300821]

>>9300593
>climate was changing on its own for 4 billion years,
Why was it changing though? Because the drivers of the climate, such as solar irradiance, greenhouse gasses, and surface albedo changed. So if humans change those factors, guess what? The climate changes.

>i dont think that ants we are are able to meaningfully influence system that existed on its own for billions of years before we fucking existed.
Do you also think humans are incapable of effecting the ozone layer? Or shrinking rivers and seas? Or turning 40% of the Earth's surface into agriculture? What a retarded argument. How about you actually look at what humans are doing and see if there's an effect instead of just assuming there can't be one?

[Anonymous No.9300884]

>>9299864
>bizarre scientific views
that's often how scientific advancement occurs--radicals

>>9299917
>alternative facts
look that up in a law dictionary

>>9300092
if governments or multinational corporations are spending money to censor scientific research, why is it out of the realm of possibility that governments, or other multinational corporations could be spending money to promote certain scientific research? Like gender spectrometers

[Anonymous No.9301331]

>>9300884
>alternative facts
>look that up in a law dictionary
Nothing seems to come up:
https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?typed=Alternative%20fact&type=1

Perhaps we need to look in an "alternative law" journal? Is Breitbart one of those? Retard.

>if governments or multinational corporations are spending money to censor scientific research
Such as?

[Anonymous No.9301362]

>>9301331
>Retard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_facts_(law)

"Alternative facts is a term in law to describe inconsistent sets of facts put forth by the same party in a court given that there is plausible evidence to support both alternatives.[1][2] The term is also used to describe competing facts for the two sides of the case.[3]"

>Such as?
not sure what >>9300092 was referring to.

[Anonymous No.9301366]

>>9299864
you wouldn't believe the depth and sophistication of the propaganda net oil shills have developed.
at this point there are probably more of them working than there are climate scientists

[Anonymous No.9301697]

The only difference is evidence and its validity. It doesn't matter what someone says, if there is proof of it, it is there. No words can disprove it if it is proven by evidence.

Aliens stalking? Obtain proof and present it.

Climate change real? Obtain proof and present it.

Lack of proof should not mean the opposite of proven. It just means it isn't proven nor disproven.

[Anonymous No.9301704]

>>9299864

Morans (ie right wing people) should be fucking shot so the human race can advance without them

[Anonymous No.9301713]

>>9301704
>Moran
>(East Africa) An unmarried Maasai or Samburu warrior.
R-raycis!

[Anonymous No.9301741]

>>9299864
It shouldn't be considered psychosis, we should just treat science deniers like the most crackpot of conspiracy theorists (which they are). Right wingers tend to deny climate science, left wingers tend to deny evolution / believe humans are magical creatures as opposed to biological creatures that formed through evolution.

[Anonymous No.9301799]

>>9301362
This page was created after Kellyanne Conway used the term and its citations do not support what it says. Just because you can find the word alternative next to the word facts in certain contexts doesn't mean it's a common legal term. if it was, you could find it in a legal dictionary, as you claimed.

[Anonymous No.9301826]

>>9300809
The problem, however, is that you have reason to question the motives of anyone putting forth a solution to climate change because their attachment to the 'problem' is cargo-cult science.

Its why I detested the "March for Science". I doubt a single person there could do an integral much less accurately model their "solutions" to climate change, it was just another flavor of democrat marching. Whether it comes in Woman's March, March for Science, March for Justice etc etc its all the same thing wrapped up into different packages.

[Anonymous No.9302169]

>>9301826
>The problem, however, is that you have reason to question the motives of anyone putting forth a solution to climate change because their attachment to the 'problem' is cargo-cult science.
Their motive is to mitigate climate change, unless you want to believe in a retarded conspiracy theory in order to avoid reality.

[Anonymous No.9302423]

>>9301826

You cannot effect global change without the brainlets though. Yes, these marches are merely symbolical in nature but how does that detract from the importance of the subject itself? And these people are even agreeing with scientific conclusions, so job well done, I'd say.

[Anonymous No.9302424]

Psychosis is having a mental disorder so severe it prevents you from coping with reality, to the point that you are unable to survive on your own or are a danger to others.
Mankind has a mental disorder so severe that it prevents it from coping with reality, to the point that it's unable to survive on its own and is a danger to others.
Does that answer your question?

[Anonymous No.9302438]

The data collected about the climate comes from government institutions who have an agenda.

The best science is done by those without an agenda. It's quite simple.

[Anonymous No.9302449]

>>9299873
>>9299886
>>9300172
>>9300593
>>9301826
Wow, the fossil fuel industry shills all got here in a flash. Their key-word bots must work great. :^)
Just out of curiosity, how much does a job like that pay? Is it boring? Do you actually believe your own 'talking points'? What other areas of sales and marketing have you been involved in?

[Anonymous No.9302453]

/pol/ is calling OP

[Anonymous No.9302456]

>>9302438
The best science is done by scientists, not paid shills. It's that simple.

[Anonymous No.9302459]

>>9302449
they do it
FOR FREEEEEE

[Anonymous No.9302464]

>>9299864
Believing either of those isn't insane, it's the obsessive behavior and paranoia that make it mental illness.

[Anonymous No.9302469]

>>9302459
Nada. There are actual departments withing corporations that do shilling full time now. Of course the fools who swallow their nonsense do it for free. But it's usually pretty easy to tell the difference.

[Anonymous No.9302487]

>>9302469

Paranoid much? I don't have a problem with using alternative energies, but I do have a problem with pseudo-scientific scaremongering to force such a thing to happen.

There is a shit load of money that can be made for green energy companies once the public is convinced. If you don't think oil barons have shares in such companies (or own them) then you're extremely naive.

Funny how climate scientists used to say we were heading for another ice age, and then it turned into global warming, and now it's just "climate change", so they can blame any and all weather on CO2.

[Anonymous No.9302970]

>>9302487
>Funny how climate scientists used to say we were heading for another ice age
I find this hard to believe, considering that we are in an ice age right now. Nice meme.

>and then it turned into global warming, and now it's just "climate change"
Global warming is current climate change. One did not replace the other. You are a mongoloid.

[Anonymous No.9302997]

>>9302970
>I find this hard to believe, considering that we are in an ice age right now. Nice meme.

So if we're in an ice age now (I don't see much ice) then maybe we're coming out of it?

>Global warming is current climate change. One did not replace the other. You are a mongoloid.

If that was true they'd continue to call it global warming. They are trying to pin extreme weather events on "climate change" as well: https://www.nap.edu/read/21852/chapter/1

Pretty sure they blamed the hurricanes in the US on it. What a load of old shit.

[Anonymous No.9303085]

>>9299883
>What's the difference between "stupid frog poster" and "OP is a faggot"?
Only the latter is homophobic.

[Anonymous No.9303090]

>>9302997

Also I must apologise for a storm I caused last night. CO2 levels were reaching breaking point and unfortunately I sneezed, releasing enough CO2 to cause a fucking typhoon.

[Anonymous No.9303120]

Put simply, one goes away if you swallow antipsychotics, the other doesn't.

[Anonymous No.9303124]

this is what scientists have loved doing for the last 3000 years. Try to become priests and when they succeed they execute people for wrongthink. Every technocracy loves doing this shit.

[Anonymous No.9303125]

>>9299864
>Where a libtard like me gets to decide what counts as "bizarre"!

[Anonymous No.9303128]

>>9302970
>I find this hard to believe

[Anonymous No.9303139]

>>9299917
Do you ever wonder if your asshole will ever stop bleeding since Hillary lost an election rigged in her favor? You've been throwing a tantrum for an entire year now. Trump IS your president.

[Anonymous No.9303146]

>>9303125
link the combined temp+CO2 graph where CO2 ppm increases after warming, not before and watch them crying "you can't believe this because the professor that lead the research isn't alarmist"

[Anonymous No.9303271]

>>9302997
>So if we're in an ice age now (I don't see much ice)
Did you try looking at the poles? Do you even know what the term "ice age" means? No, you don't.

>So if we're in an ice age now (I don't see much ice) then maybe we're coming out of it?
Of course we're coming out of it, the ice is melting. We should be slowly cooling right now according to the natural cycle, but we're going in the opposite direction. Which would be disastrous considering humans and the ecosystem we rely on have always lived in an ice age.

>If that was true they'd continue to call it global warming.
They do you massive tard.

>They are trying to pin extreme weather events on "climate change"
Why would they not? The climate is simply the average of weather over time and space. If the average goes up then that means weather is more extreme. Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Why are you pretending?

>Pretty sure they blamed the hurricanes in the US on it.
Hurricanes only form when the ocean surface is above a certain temperature. Warmer oceans means hurricanes are more likely to form and last longer since the hurricane will persist as long as it is over warm water.

[Anonymous No.9303275]

>>9299864
climate change is real, global warming is not. they are not the same thing either

[Anonymous No.9303316]

>>9303271
>Hurricanes only form when the ocean surface is above a certain temperature. Warmer oceans means hurricanes are more likely to form and last longer since the hurricane will persist as long as it is over warm water.

[Anonymous No.9303332]

>>9303125
Your graph is a laughable fraud since the latest temperature data from Alley 2004 (see source) is 1855, not 2000! Your graph ends at the pre-industrial era, before global warming occured, yet you label it as global warming. Maybe try a little real skepticism and look at the source before you embarrass yourself again.

Source: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt

[Anonymous No.9303346]

>>9303128
>Confuses glaciation with ice age
>Confuses local cooling for global cooling
>Confuses analysis of climate in thousands of years for hundreds
Why exactly do you expect anyone to take your memes seriously when you can't even read the abstract of a scientific paper?

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

[Anonymous No.9303365]

>>9303139
>Human contribution of CO2 into the atmosphere
>Ignores that natural sinks absorb more CO2 than natural sources emit, while humans don't.

>CO2 lags temperature by 800-2000 years
Of course it does, if orbital eccentricity causes insolation to increase, then warming starts the feedback loop between warming and CO2 evaporating from the oceans. The climate has never had humans dump massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, thus we have never seen CO2 start to increase before temperature, until now! Do you think climatologists don't already know this? Do you not realize that without this feedback loop you cannot explain the Milankovich cycle? No of course not, you have no idea what your idiotic memes are even implying.

>The models are wrong
Actually the data is wrong. Several sources of error were discovered in the satellite techniques since 2009 and they are now much more in line with the instrumental data. To see how well the IPCC is doing I suggest you look at current updates:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/2010-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/

>Ice core samples indicate warm periods long before the Industrial Revolution
And? The problem with global warming is not that it's warm, it's that it's warming very quickly. The rate of warming is unprecedented and the infrastructure and ecosystems we rely on have no time to adapt. Also, you do know that ice cores are proxies for the temperature in a single place, not the global climate right?

And last but not least another fraudulent graph, using flawed, cherrypicked data and not even showing surface temperature.

[Anonymous No.9303373]

>>9303316
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07234

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature03906

[Anonymous No.9303380]

>>9303271

>Did you try looking at the poles? Do you even know what the term "ice age" means? No, you don't.

Not really no, because it's unscientific nonsense. Did you know we have also have countries that are mainly hot and sunny, but yeah we're in an ice age because the areas of the earth that the sun doesn't shine on much is frozen.

>Of course we're coming out of it, the ice is melting. We should be slowly cooling right now according to the natural cycle, but we're going in the opposite direction. Which would be disastrous considering humans and the ecosystem we rely on have always lived in an ice age.

You do realise that an ice cube melting in a glass of water doesn't raise the water level. Also, how did the poles and glaciers freeze in the first place? Lack of CO2?

[Anonymous No.9303389]

>>9303380
Ah so suddenly it doesn't matter what it means now that we know scientists never said what you claimed? Time to grow up.

>You do realise that an ice cube melting in a glass of water doesn't raise the water level.
You do realize that there is this thing called land ice which is sitting on land, not floating in the ocean right? It's more like an ice cube being held above a glass, dropping into it as it melts. Jesus Christ, Dunning Kruger at work.

>Also, how did the poles and glaciers freeze in the first place? Lack of CO2?
Lack of solar insolation due to Earth's orbital eccentricity.

[Anonymous No.9303398]

>>9303389
>Ah so suddenly it doesn't matter what it means now that we know scientists never said what you claimed? Time to grow up.

Show me observable, testable and repeatable proof and I'll listen. They don't provide any of that.

>You do realize that there is this thing called land ice which is sitting on land, not floating in the ocean right? It's more like an ice cube being held above a glass, dropping into it as it melts. Jesus Christ, Dunning Kruger at work.

Mind showing me this "land ice". I've only ever seen ice.

Also it's more like a tall ice cube in a glass that sticks out of the water, the water level won't change.

[Anonymous No.9303420]

>>9303398
>Show me observable, testable and repeatable proof
Proof of what? That climatologists know what an ice age is and therefore would not say what you lied about them saying? No, no, no that's not how this works. The burden of proof is on you when you claim climatologists said something.

>Mind showing me this "land ice". I've only ever seen ice.
So you've never heard of Antarctica and Greenland? We're you home-schooled Cletus?

>Also it's more like a tall ice cube in a glass that sticks out of the water
It's not floating in the water you moron, that's the key difference. If it's not floating in the water, and it's above the water, then when it melts it will increase the water level. elementary school students understand this, Cletus. Sad!

[Anonymous No.9303431]

>>9301741
>left wingers tend to deny evolution / believe humans are magical creatures as opposed to biological creatures that formed through evolution.

This is pretty fucking ironic, but makes sense considering the "all men are equal" shtick is a Christian derived idea.

[Anonymous No.9303452]

Can someone tell me why climate change will make Earth uninhabitable for humans?

I get that it is not good; more and stronger hurricanes, and desertification. But how will any of this doom humanity?

[Anonymous No.9303457]

>>9303452
>Can someone tell me why climate change will make Earth uninhabitable for humans?
It won't. You do realize that global warming can be bad without killing us, right?

[Anonymous No.9303461]

>>9303420

All "climatologists" can provide is graphs. All their temperature data comes from governments. There is a conflict of interest there.

>So you've never heard of Antarctica and Greenland? We're you home-schooled Cletus?

Wish I was. Oh I've heard of them. Greenland doesn't have much ice at all and we're not allowed to go to Antarctica for some reason. They have military bases there stopping people from going.

>It's not floating in the water you moron, that's the key difference. If it's not floating in the water, and it's above the water, then when it melts it will increase the water level. elementary school students understand this, Cletus. Sad

Is it in the water or not? Doesn't matter if it's not floating, the level will remain the same whether it melts or not because it's already in the water.

[Anonymous No.9303470]

>>9303457
Yes. I said it would.

I've just seen a lot of doom-and-gloom speculation that seemed like total BS. Like for example Steven Hawking just lowered his estimation for how long we have left to 100 years, and one of his reasons was climate change.

>>9303461
But it's not already in the water. Glaciers on land melt, this water runs off into streams and rivers, and eventually reaches the ocean. As for Antarctica being inaccessible, this is simply false:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism_in_Antarctica

[Anonymous No.9303479]

>>9303461
>All "climatologists" can provide is graphs. All their temperature data comes from governments. There is a conflict of interest there.
So stop using science you massive retard.

>Greenland doesn't have much ice at all and we're not allowed to go to Antarctica for some reason. They have military bases there stopping people from going.
Can't tell if trolling or actually retarded.

>Is it in the water or not? Doesn't matter if it's not floating, the level will remain the same whether it melts or not because it's already in the water.
Wow you are one dumb redneck.

[Anonymous No.9303481]

>>9303470
Maybe you should listen to what climatologists are saying about the climate instead of memes.

[Anonymous No.9303489]

>>9303481
So Hawking is bullshitting?

Not hard to believe tbqh, he has a book about to be published and declaring we only have 100 years left seems like headline-grabbing news that will sell copies.

[Anonymous No.9303498]

>>9303470

Glaciers aren't on land, they are in the water and move around.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism_in_Antarctica

You can't do shit there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty_System

>>9303479

Science is basically just common sense. Or at least it should be.

[Anonymous No.9303503]

>>9303489
Hawking does not know anything about Earth science dude. He's a theoretical physicist.

[Anonymous No.9303506]

>>9303498
>Glaciers aren't on land, they are in the water and move around.
Some of them are. Like the glaciers in the Alps. Or on Greenland.

You can fucking see the glaciers on google maps btw, you don't need to go there.

[Anonymous No.9303507]

>>9303498
>Glaciers aren't on land, they are in the water and move around.
Glaciers only form on land. Why do you keep making shit up? Do you enjoy getting BTFO?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier

>Science is basically just common sense. Or at least it should be.
Common sense has clearly failed you.

[Anonymous No.9303513]

>>9300782
Go back to pol shill

[Anonymous No.9303524]

>>9303506

Do you know what temperature ice melts at? Are you telling me Antarctica is 0 or above degrees?

[Anonymous No.9303533]

>>9303524
>Are you telling me Antarctica is 0 or above degrees?
Some of it is sometimes.

[Anonymous No.9303537]

>>9299864
Kinda wished you hadn't used "climate change" as your example and derailed the subject, because this is, more and more, something I'm seeing as a form of psychosis.

Climate-change denial is a political thing of the modern age, so I don't slot it in this category. It leads to a lot of anti-intellectualism, which is another problem (and probably a bigger one), but not, on the individual level, a psychosis.

But there's a whole slew of people who deny *everything* mainstream science says, and considers anything that counters their alternate set of theories as part of a conspiracy, and they build a truly labyrinthine mythos of "alternate science".

Such activity is kinda useful, when it comes in the forms of mathematically, if not observationally, provable thought-forms, like String Theory, but when it gets into stuff that directly counters observation, such as electric universe and the like, you'll find it invariably delves into a rabbit-hole abyss, involving, for instance, Saturn Cults trying to bring us back to the days when the Earth orbited Saturn. This leads to distrust of every institution, as all forms of authority seem to be part of the conspiracy, and pretty soon the folks swayed by these find themselves victims of government-planned gang stalking and view themselves of renegades working against the reptilian alliance and the like.

It's not necessarily a slippery slope between the two points, but with the internet, the worlds built on these paranoid delusions is so wildly elaborate as to have something for everyone, and is increasingly difficult to pull the folks prone to such delusions away from them. The more ways the mind has to build false associations, the harder the castles made up of those false webbing are to take down, and the wider the cultural cancer spreads.

It gives us fun things, like the X-Files, but as people trust rigorous and institutionalized intellectualism less and less... These cults of fantasy start to take over.

[Anonymous No.9303546]

This place is worse than /pol/ when it comes to shill accusations. A person not believing climate change is that big of a deal is not evidence they're being paid by big oil or whatever other conspiracy you're evoking to dismiss them as non-humans.

[Anonymous No.9303555]

>>9303373
there two papers were considered and cited by the panel in the 2012 report (which i've linked below). so the "scientific consensus" is that you are full of shit.

pic is from page 159, or search for (Emanuel, 2007) in the below PDF

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srex/SREX-Chap3_FINAL.pdf

[Anonymous No.9303562]

>>9303555
The scientific consensus is that global warming should increase hurricane intensity, but our observational evidence is weak. This doesn't contradict anything I said.

[Anonymous No.9303574]

>>9303316 is from page 163 of the report here >>9303555

In summary, there is low confidence that any observed long-term (i.e., 40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity are robust, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. The uncertainties in the historical tropical cyclone records, the incomplete understanding of the physical mechanisms linking tropical cyclone metrics to climate change, and the degree of tropical cyclone variability provide only low confidence for the attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic influences. There is low confidencein projections of changes in tropical cyclone genesis, location, tracks, duration, or areas of impact. Based on the level of consistency among models, and physical reasoning, it is likely that tropical cyclonerelated rainfall rates will increase with greenhouse warming. It is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged. An increase in mean tropical cyclone maximum wind speed is likely, although increases may not occur in all tropical regions. While it is likely that overall global frequency will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged, it is more likely than notthat the frequency of the most intense storms will increase substantially in some ocean basins.

[Anonymous No.9303579]

>>9303533

How's that then?

>>9303537

Dp you understand how science works? It must constantly be challenged, theories are not fact.

If you don't question what you're told that's up to you, but it means you're a slave to other people's thoughts and ideas, even if they are correct.

[Anonymous No.9303593]

>>9303579
> It must constantly be challenged, theories are not fact.
It would be nice then if you actually challenged it instead of just stating laughable fallacies, which clearly stem from your ideological need to deny reality and not any ability to actually understand, let alone improve, science.

[Anonymous No.9303602]

>>9303579
There's a world of difference between questioning theories, and denying their observational evidence to support your own batshit insane theories, layering these theories, one on top of the other, ignoring the flaws running from top to bottom of the resulting house of cards, and presenting it as the ultimate reality, and all evidence against it as part of a vast conspiracy. Leading to such things as "The Earth is flat. Relativity is a lie. Gravity isn't real.", and ultimately to the idea that anything anyone in authority has ever said, is a lie, due ancient cults that secretly run the world.

A healthy degree of skepticism is all well and good, but throwing all human knowledge out with the bathwater is insanity, leading to non-arguments on par with a certain Monty Python sketch.

[Anonymous No.9303619]

>>9303562
>The scientific consensus is that global warming should increase hurricane intensity
that's misleading, the consensus is:

"An increase in mean tropical cyclone maximum wind speed is likely, although increases may not occur in all tropical regions."

also the consensus is that:
"It is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged."

but i've seen plenty of headlines suggesting otherwise

[Anonymous No.9303626]

>>9303619
How is that misleading? Again, how does it contradict what I said?

[Anonymous No.9303633]

>>9303593

Where at Antarctjca is it 0 degrees or warmer?

>>9303602

Explain the flaws, that's all you have to do.

Modern science isn't based on observational evidence any more, it's mathemtical equation after mathematical equation. That's not reailty.

[Anonymous No.9303638]

>>9303626
>increases may not occur in all tropical regions.

[Anonymous No.9303641]

>>9303638
>An increase in mean tropical cyclone maximum wind speed is likely

[Anonymous No.9303655]

>>9303633
>Where at Antarctjca is it 0 degrees or warmer?
At the edges.

http://www.newsweek.com/antarctic-ice-melting-phenomenon-circumpolar-deep-water-689164

[Anonymous No.9303701]

>>9303633
They don't explain them, they ignore them, and accuse anyone who points them out as being part of the establishment conspiracy.

And if you can't test it, it can't graduate to theory. They simultaneously denounce observational evidence that founds the current theory, and any observational evidence that denounces their own.

Not that I don't regularly see folks who don't suffer from this disease occasionally balk and flail to retain their world view, particularly in the realm of cosmology (just try to explain anyone studying QM the relativistic Block Universe, should they have somehow missed or ignored it), and not that science at large isn't slow to make its way out of a groove it has carved out when new evidence begins to cause its walls to crumble - but the folks I'm describing are contrarian out of a sense of self-righteousness bordering on solipsism, rather than out of well founded tradition and reluctance of having to rethink things they previously accepted as wondrous revelations in order to accept a much less appealing reality.

[Anonymous No.9304451]

>>9303701

Just reading this post alone I can't tell if you're talking about climate deniers or the doom and gloom climate catastrophers.

[Anonymous No.9304467]

>>9304451
You're not very good at reading then:

>and accuse anyone who points them out as being part of the establishment conspiracy.

[Anonymous No.9304511]

>>9304451
>Kinda wished you hadn't used "climate change" as your example and derailed the subject, because this is, more and more, something I'm seeing as a form of psychosis.
>Climate-change denial is a political thing of the modern age, so I don't slot it in this category. It leads to a lot of anti-intellectualism, which is another problem (and probably a bigger one), but not, on the individual level, a psychosis.

Neither. The Climate Change thing is a political phenomenon. The only psychosis folks on either side of that debate suffer from is the same all of humanity suffers from - tribalism. In the end, it has nothing to do with science, the truth of the matter is simple obscured through collective controversy.

No, I'm talking more about when the anti-intellectualism and anti-establishmentism reaches such a degree that alternate models are created that begin to create fantastic worlds of their own.

For example:
https://i.4cdn.org/tg/1511024335202.pdf

...These are becoming more and more common as distrust of the establishment and anti-intellectualism grows (I suppose some of that can be pinned on the climate change debate and the forces behind it - but it's more symptom than cause). As this continues, it is increasingly likely that one or more of them will overtake the mainstream, and then you're looking at a spooky short hop to a new dark age, with no need for global nuclear war or similar such apocalyptic trigger.

...and, on this very board, you already see such people, even more often than you see irresolvable climate change debates. Hell, they start half the threads on the board these days.

[Anonymous No.9304516]

>>9304467

Are you being funded by big oil or the renewable energy cartel?

[Anonymous No.9304596]

>>9304516
Are you schizophrenic?

[Anonymous No.9304616]

>>9304596

No I'm not. The point I'm making is that both sides accuse others of being part of a conspiracy so this doesn't tell me which side your post is talking about.

[Anonymous No.9304626]

>>9304616
> The point I'm making is that both sides accuse others of being part of a conspiracy
And where exactly did I do that?

>so this doesn't tell me which side your post is talking about.
Not me.

[Anonymous No.9304627]

>>9301826
The March for science was not even about climate change, it was about science funding getting cut across the board. It did primarily affect environmental scientists but most environmental science don't even deal with climate change. They were cutting funding to people who were studying freshwater lakes and whatnot.
In Canada at least.

[Anonymous No.9304629]

>>9304626

I didn't say you accused others of being a part of a conspiracy. I responded to this post here >>9303701 by saying I couldn't tell which side he was talking about, and presumably you responded with this post >>9304467 implying that it's obvious who the original post was talking about because only one side accuses others of being part of a conspiracy. That isn't true which was my point. I don't know what your deal is.

[Anonymous No.9304647]

>>9304629
Again, wrong. Only one side can be described as being part of the "establishment conspiracy."

[Anonymous No.9304654]

>>9300593
>Nah, don't wanna believe it so I don't
So you believe science if it tells you that climate has changed before, but once it tells you that humans are changing climate now you deny everything, huh

[Anonymous No.9304669]

>>9304647

"Establishment" can be defined as a a settled arrangement; a place of business or a public or private institution. We can simplify this definition by calling it a group of people. "Big oil" can be described as a group of people who own oil companies and "the renewable energy cartel" can be described a group of people who own business related to renewable energy, solar panel; manufacturers and so on. Both fall under this definition of establishment and they both have interests and motivations so both sides can be accused to foul play on the subject of climate change.

You can only deny this by narrowly restricting the definition of establishment to a point of absurdity. It wouldn't make any sense to call "big oil" establishment but not include "big renewable."

[Anonymous No.9304685]

>>9304669
>Both fall under this definition of establishment and they both have interests and motivations so both sides can be accused to foul play on the subject of climate change.
Of course, but this doesn't apply to the post in question because it's talking about establishment *science* not industry:

"They simultaneously denounce observational evidence that founds the current theory, and any observational evidence that denounces their own."

[Anonymous No.9304701]

>>9304685

"Current theory" is relative to whoever is speaking so it can't be used to indicate whether you're talking about climate change proponents or deniers. You have to ask yourself, the current theory to whom? According to a "denier" the current theory is that climate change isn't real so the other people are denouncing observation evidence that founds the current theory. According to proponents the current theory is that climate change is real so "deniers" are denouncing observational evidence that founds the current theory. The language is vague and could go either way. That's my only point, I just think it's interesting. I don't know why you're making a big deal about it.

[Anonymous No.9304706]

>>9304701
>"Current theory" is relative to whoever is speaking so it can't be used to indicate whether you're talking about climate change proponents or deniers.
Ha, no. Deniers would never claim that they have the establishment theory. Everyone understand what is meant by current theory. You're grasping at straws.

[Anonymous No.9304712]

>>9304706

When I defined establishment as a group of people you didn't object to it. How can a group of people who deny climate change not be considered an establishment of deniers?

[Anonymous No.9304728]

>>9304712
>When I defined establishment as a group of people you didn't object to it. How can a group of people who deny climate change not be considered an establishment of deniers?
I said that your definition doesn't apply to what we're talking about. A word can mean many different things, but is only intended to mean one thing, which can be determined from context. Here the word "establishment" refers to the controlling group in climatology. The establishment theory is AGW. Arguing it can apply to any group is simply equivocation.

[Anonymous No.9304744]

>>9304728

>Arguing it can apply to any group is simply equivocation.

Exactly. You're getting it now. The post can be applied to both sides. To you the post means proponents of a certain theory of climate change but it can also be applied to other theories. You say my definition of establishment doesn't apply but you're not explaining your reasoning. I don't think you can because there's no rational way to define the term establishment that would include proponents while excluding deniers.

For you the context is clear that the post is talking about proponents but for somebody else the context could indicate they're talking about deniers. You keep asserting that this is wrong but that doesn't make it so. If you want to keep bickering about this then define your terms and explain your reasoning.

[Anonymous No.9304776]

>>9304744
>Exactly. You're getting it now.
Ah so you admit that you're being misleading.

>The post can be applied to both sides.
Yes, it can be if you ignore context. But ignoring context isn't honest.

>You say my definition of establishment doesn't apply but you're not explaining your reasoning.
I explained it very clearly. Let me repeat it:

1. The post refers to a belief in an establishment conspiracy.

2. The post refers to current scientific theory

Only one side would be described both as the establishment and as current scientific theory. Climate deniers would not describe their position as the establishment, because establishment in the context of a scientific theory implies the controlling group, not just any group.

You can call oil companies an establishment and a denier's alternative hypothesis as a "current theory" but you can't bridge the gap between these two into the same subject. All you're doing is contorting semantics while the intent is clear from context.

[Anonymous No.9304794]

>>9304776

You just keep reasserting the same shit, and to top it off now you're greentexting individual sentences. I'm gaining absolutely nothing by talking to you so peace out.

[Anonymous No.9304800]

>>9300809
Oh shit 1.6 w/m^2 we're all fucked how will we ever recover from this absolutely massive amount of energy. Holy fuck avereage world temperature might increase 2C over the next 100 years. Let's all just drink bleach right now, it was a good run guys but we clearly cannot come back from this

[Anonymous No.9304807]

>>9304794
>You just keep reasserting the same shit
I reasserted what you claimed I did not do and failed to respond to. I don't see why I should not.

>and to top it off now you're greentexting individual sentences.
As if I was not from the beginning. It's to respond to your claims, which you should also be doing. Seeya.

[Anonymous No.9304810]

>>9304800
That's a lot man
>methyl calthrates
>albedo feedback
E to the TC.

[Anonymous No.9304812]

>>9304627
>In Canada at least.
Same here in the US. Every other federal science related department lacks a head, and the Science and Technology division is completely unstaffed for the first time since Truman founded it.

Watering plants with Gatorade is next on the list, I suppose. Timothy Mcveigh would be proud.

[Anonymous No.9304814]

>>9304800
>Oh shit 1.6 w/m^2 we're all fucked how will we ever recover from this absolutely massive amount of energy. Holy fuck avereage world temperature might increase 2C over the next 100 years.
This is an unprecedented rate of warming. The effects are well studied. What exactly is the point of your post? It doesn't negate anything.

[Anonymous No.9304878]

>>9299864
It's only considered psychosis if the beliefe is not shared by others that might have influenced the person. That is part of the definition or else every religious person would be classified as psychotic/schizophrenic.

[Anonymous No.9304961]

>>9304814
>The effects are well studied.

How are the effects well studied when it's apparently never happened before?

[Anonymous No.9304991]

>>9299864
Sounds like the thought police to me

[Anonymous No.9305047]

>>9304961
Because we know how CO2 works, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.9305084]

>>9304961
Because it's happening right now. And there's this thing called science that allows us to determine the effects of changes to the Earth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming

[Anonymous No.9305102]

>>9299864
it's only a psychosis if you or other people around you suffer any direct negative effects from it.

[Anonymous No.9305124]

>>9305047

>Because we know how CO2 works, brainlet.

No we don't. Can you show me a picture of CO2 at the atomic level?

>>9305084
>Because it's happening right now. And there's this thing called science that allows us to determine the effects of changes to the Earth.

Where does all the information and data about these "effects" come from? Who controls the instruments that measures these supposed effects?

[Anonymous No.9305177]

>>9305124
>No we don't. Can you show me a picture of CO2 at the atomic level?
What does a picture of a CO2 molecule have to do with whether we understand it? We don't have pictures of many molecules, doesn't mean we don't understand exactly how they behave. Already I can see you're going to be one of these guys who will just say anything to justify your retardation.

>Where does all the information and data about these "effects" come from?
You're welcome to look at the citations. You do know what those are right? You couldn't possibly be posting on the science board without knowing how science works right?

>muh science is a conspiracy when it says something I don't like, can't know nuffin, etc.
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.9305231]

>>9305177
>What does a picture of a CO2 molecule have to do with whether we understand it? We don't have pictures of many molecules, doesn't mean we don't understand exactly how they behave. Already I can see you're going to be one of these guys who will just say anything to justify your retardation.


Well it's a good way to actually prove its existence. There should be thousands of photos. Instead we have made up illustrations. That's not scientific evidence.

>You're welcome to look at the citations. You do know what those are right? You couldn't possibly be posting on the science board without knowing how science works right?

As if citations means it more true, doesn't mean anything when you fund the majority of science, and don't fund the stuff you don't like.

[Anonymous No.9305251]

>>9305231
So you believe CO2 doesn't exist? Seriously, fuck off retard >>>/x/

>As if citations means it more true, doesn't mean anything when you fund the majority of science, and don't fund the stuff you don't like.
Yes, yes, the earth is flat and 6000 years old and the government is covering it up. We get it.

[Anonymous No.9305283]

>>9304961
>never happened before
it has happened before
Most recently in the Pliocene 5-2 mya

[Anonymous No.9305339]

>>9305251

>So you believe CO2 doesn't exist? Seriously, fuck off retard >>>/x/

I need evidence first, not illustrations and descriptions.

>Yes, yes, the earth is flat and 6000 years old and the government is covering it up. We get it.

I don't know how old it is, and neither does anyone else.

>Most recently in the Pliocene 5-2 mya

What scripture is that from?

[Anonymous No.9305362]

>>9305231

>There should be thousands of photos. Instead we have made up illustrations. That's not scientific evidence.
It is physically impossible to obtain images of small particles or see them with our eyes. An atom for example is 1nm wide. Visible light is 400nm wide. It physically can't work. The only way we "see" particles so small is by reconstructing them digitally, like with electron microscopy.


Does the inability to see something with your eyes mean you don't believe in it? Even though you communicate wirelessly with people across the earth every single day?

[Anonymous No.9305401]

>>9305362
>An atom for example is 1nm wide. Visible light is 400nm wide.

So what? Zoom in. Or if you had a 400nm wide bunch of atoms together, you'd be able to see them then right?

So you "see" atoms using other made up particles called electrons, which are substantially smaller by the way.

>Does the inability to see something with your eyes mean you don't believe in it? Even though you communicate wirelessly with people across the earth every single day?

[Anonymous No.9305411]

>Does the inability to see something with your eyes mean you don't believe in it? Even though you communicate wirelessly with people across the earth every single day?

Well apparently I am seeing atoms, just a shitload of them packed together, just I can't see them individually. That's illogical. If I cannot see one atom individually, then I cannot see a bunch of them together either.

Think about it like this. If a single pixel that was emitting light couldn't be seen by the naked eye, then how would you see a bunch of them together making up a screen?

[Anonymous No.9305481]

>>9305411
Ah, it seems you're having a problem getting a grip on the concept of detection resolution. The idea is that there is a minimum signal needed for a system to register a detection.
Think about it this way: if I drop a grain of salt on you, you probably won't notice it at all (and if you did, then I would use half a grain, a quarter grain and so on until you didn't notice it.). However, if I drop 1000 grains of salt on you, you'd definitely notice that!
How can it be that, even though each of the grains is independent of the others, that we can sense when 1000 of them fall on us but not a single one? The answer is that your skin (which is an analogy for all sensory devices like your eyes, telescopes, and the particle detectors in the LHC) has a certain minimum signal below which it won't register a detection.
So an individual grain of salt is below this threshold, but when you drop 1000 of them, even if they land not all at the same place or time, their combined signal is above the detection threshold, so you turn your head and say, "Dude, what the fuck? Cut it with the salt."

[Anonymous No.9305505]

>>9299864
because economic models that can't predict stock prices in 24 hours shouldn't be used to predict the climate in 100 years

also, the only proposed solution to climate change coming from the left so far is "give more authority to the government that drops bombs on brown people for being terrorists that we train"

[Anonymous No.9305524]

>>9305505
>because economic models that can't predict stock prices in 24 hours shouldn't be used to predict the climate in 100 years
Which economic models are being used to predict the climate?

>also, the only proposed solution to climate change coming from the left so far is "give more authority to the government that drops bombs on brown people for being terrorists that we train"
The government already has the authority to tax and regulate pollutants. Which it should if GHGs are harmful. Which they are. Get over it already. These "arguments" are pathetic.

[Anonymous No.9306099]

>>9299864
the difference between "climate change isn't real" and "aliens are stalking me" is the difference between being wrong and having paranoid schizophrenia

[Anonymous No.9306101]

Nah and this thread is pretty rude.