🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 23:48:34 UTC No. 16199935
Claims that “97 percent of scientists” agree that a climate catastrophe is looming because of the emission of CO2 should be greeted with skepticism. Traditional science has advanced by comparing observations or experiments with theoretical predictions. If there is agreement with theory, confidence in the theory is increased. If there is disagreement, the theory is abandoned or it is modified and tested again against observations.
Scientific truth has never been established by consensus, for example, by “97 percent agreement.” History reveals many instances when the scientific consensus of the day was later discredited. The widespread embrace and practice of eugenics in the early 1900s; opposition to the theory of plate tectonics in geology; and the dominance of Lysenkoist biology in the Soviet bloc, are a few recent examples. Given the frequency of mistaken consensus, citizens everywhere should heed the Royal Society’s motto and learn as much as they can about how increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere will affect the planet.
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 00:05:18 UTC No. 16199959
>>16199935
as i recall the "97%" figure was a cumulative figure responding to a statement like "there is some level of detectable warming happening, possibly due to man" (ie, if you responded "yeah maybe, but nothing to worry about" it counts) and the climate cultists misrepresent it as if 97% of scientists strongly endorse climate lockdowns and abolishing private property
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 07:07:20 UTC No. 16200410
>>16199935
>Claims that “97 percent of scientists” agree that a climate catastrophe is looming because of the emission of CO2 should be greeted with skepticism.
Absolutely, all it means is that among the experts who have looked at the data, models, and conclusions, 97% of them agree that it all looks logically coherent and correct. It doesn't mean it's true, but it does mean that the probabilities for it all being a grand error are small.
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 08:48:25 UTC No. 16200485
>>16199959
>as i recall
Figures.
If only the paper was publicly accessible...
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 21:48:05 UTC No. 16201491
>>16200410
Exxon's science on global warming changed between 1977 and the 1990s. They thought global warming was real and then they realized that they were wrong about it.
Science changes, its called learning. How come you're too dumb to evolve mentally the way the scientists at Exxon can? Why do you still believe in disproved 50 year old theories?
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 23:15:48 UTC No. 16201631
>>16200485
>We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed
scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate
change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed
AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing
a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
>32.6% of papers endorsed AGW
>97% of the authors of those papers endorsed AGW
so they basically surveyed the authors of papers who support the idea of agw and we're supposed to be impressed they all agree with agw?
>In a second
phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of
self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW,
97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements
among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that
the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
also not a flex
🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 23:51:57 UTC No. 16201663
>>16201631
Given that this is a controversial topic, how does the funding break down between scientists who believe in global warming and those who don't?
It should be about 50/50, is it?
Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 00:09:20 UTC No. 16201677
>>16200410
Invalid chain of reasoning. Consensus has nothing to do with being correct, nor does science have anything to do with truth. If these cases were inverted, your statement might hold.
Btw, less than 1% of scientists study logic, which is yet another aberration against your sentiment.
Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 00:22:38 UTC No. 16201696
The science has spoken REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mptND
Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 06:21:20 UTC No. 16202130
>>16201663
>It should be about 50/50, is it?
no, people who dispute the desired political narrative get no funding because politicians control the budgets
Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 09:58:14 UTC No. 16202256
>>16201491
>and then they realized that they were wrong about it.
Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 09:59:15 UTC No. 16202257
>>16201677
>Consensus has nothing to do with being correct
Exactly, as I stated. Good to agree with you
Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 18:07:02 UTC No. 16202796
>>16200380
California is the lowest IQ state in the nation
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 02:29:58 UTC No. 16203443
>>16199959
they analysed a lot of climate papers
>32% said humans cause climate change
>1% said human don't cause climate change
>67% were undecided
>the 32% of papers were written mostly by a small group of prolific climate researchers, less than a few hundred scientists in total
>they reported this as "97% of scientists agree.."
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 02:52:46 UTC No. 16203474
>>16203443
>prolific
that just means they published a lot, which means they spent all their time on writing papers instead of doing actual research
🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 19:32:47 UTC No. 16205016
>>16199935
97 percent of scientists fuck dogs
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 09:57:16 UTC No. 16205979
>>16205016
>If you need me I'll be in my lab
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 21:43:05 UTC No. 16206806
>>16203474
>they spent all their time on writing papers instead of doing actual research
They're actually hired to teach, but they don't do that, instead they devote themselves to endless resumé padding by spamming out useless publications
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 22:13:29 UTC No. 16206841
>>16205016
The professor looked over towards the people who discovered him, with fear and desperation in his eyes. He was distraught, but at the same time ANGRY with them. After all, it was they what told him this was all right behavior in this community. "YOU TOLD ME YOU HAVE SEX WITH ANIMALS IN THIS TOWN!", he screamed. One said back "Yeah!"
"But that's Cleveland Larry's girlfriend!!"
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 15:12:16 UTC No. 16207893
>>16199935
You know how I know it's fake and gay? Because we are ultra fucking concerned about carbon dioxide for some reason, but you don't hear Greta bitching about pollution from lithium strip mining, all the shit we are dumping into the ocean, etc. etc. ad infinitum. The whole reason behind "muh carbon" is to create a new asset class to kick the financial can down the road. Whether or not it also is a scam to put the average person into modern day serfdom is questionable, but goddamn if it doesn't seem like that is an active goal powerful organizations are working towards.
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 15:23:51 UTC No. 16207900
>>16207893
How dare you. Greta has identified you as the problem, don't go on with your whataboutism gish gallop. You sound yt.
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 19:36:05 UTC No. 16208258
>>16207900
Greta is white
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 22:33:29 UTC No. 16208536
>>16199935 Al Gore was right all along, but you ignored him.
His only mistake was the timing. Nothing else.
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 04:39:49 UTC No. 16209175
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 20:33:15 UTC No. 16210372
>>16202256
The science changed, why does that upset you so much?
Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 05:10:21 UTC No. 16211094
>>16206806
>by spamming out useless publications
they're worse than merely useless, the lies they circulate are extremely harmful.
Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 22:03:39 UTC No. 16212535
>>16199935
>Traditional science has advanced by comparing observations or experiments with theoretical predictions
since none of global warming's theoretical predictions have ever come true, the theory has been disproved, thats how science works.
Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 22:39:44 UTC No. 16212597
>>16212535
>since none of global warming's theoretical predictions have ever come true
A blatantly false statement.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 08:51:08 UTC No. 16213334
>>16212597
thats just lies from the trashy sensationalist replication crisis soiyence journals, none of it is real.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3e
the weather hasn't changed at all in the past half century
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 13:10:27 UTC No. 16214463
>>16213334
>>16212535
Imagine being this retarded
🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 19:47:11 UTC No. 16220416
>>16202796
how are they going to pay all their gibes once all the whites leave the state?
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 22:04:42 UTC No. 16220721
>>16213334
>Winter warmest they've been since measurement started in the 1700's
>No snow winters just normal now
>Literally don't even have spring anymore, weather goes from cold to summer weather in a matter of days
>driest summers since measurement started in the 1700's
>latest start of autumn since measurement started in the 1700's
But yeah no weather hasn't changed man
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 22:30:55 UTC No. 16220764
>>16218676
>Watts' own paper shows that temperature trends are in line with mainstream estimates (around 0.3°C/decade for land temperature)
Pottery.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 07:06:49 UTC No. 16221478
>>16201491
Exxon doesnt have climate scientists. Why would they?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 12:20:50 UTC No. 16221768
>>16212535
Anon, in your own snippet:
>could
Words matter.
Also:
>entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels...
Yes, it says that, but when? It's not potentially untrue, there is information missing. Let's carry on:
>if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000
Therefore, if the trend is not stopped by then.
From all that I have explained, I think you can now understand that the text you showed us does not say "entire nations will be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels by the year 2000".
Here, have a pretty picture of the atmosphere.
Best regards,
Me
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 21:57:18 UTC No. 16222950
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:15:10 UTC No. 16223612
>>16202796
>>16200380
Yet smarter to use hydrogen vehicle
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 02:58:28 UTC No. 16226079
>>16224846
He should look into the history of cyclonic storms in the Pacific, Typhoon Tip is still the strongest storm ever observed, it took place in the 70s, the strongest storm in the southern hemisphere was in the 1800s
🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 03:13:42 UTC No. 16226102
>>16199935
Fuck off retarded nigger
🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 03:15:01 UTC No. 16226104
>>16224846
>studying for six years
>21 year old college student
>blatant denying reality
Grifting trash
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 21:52:26 UTC No. 16227496
>>16226102
the n word is racist
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 22:53:11 UTC No. 16227607
>>16220764
That's probably why he made a cherry picking program that you can download from his website. I feel like going through the process of cherry picking yourself should demystify the bullshit and demonstrate to you why looking at all the data is more important than getting the trend you're after, but hey, climate change deniers have never been big on introspection, have they?
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 18:14:43 UTC No. 16228763
>>16208258
Greta is trans
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 04:25:38 UTC No. 16229793
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 11:48:54 UTC No. 16230148
>>16229793
All major global temp datasets have been on the rise, in line with the models.
Where does the "black line: the official world average temperature™" come from, exactly?
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 19:03:11 UTC No. 16230791
>>16229793
>no change in average temperature since the late 20th century
thats over a quarter of a century ago
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 19:52:07 UTC No. 16230886
>>16226104
>studying for six years
You don't need to be in college to be able to study some subject. Self study is still study, or are you saying autodidacts do not exist?
>21 year old college student
That is one of the most common ages for college students... How is that notable?
>blatant denying reality
Sorry sweetie, your delusions do not dictate what is real and what isn't =)
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:04:51 UTC No. 16230903
>>16199935
Basically every soientific discovery from the last 100 years has proven massively wrong. Physics is going through massive scandals right now where basically everything is wrong. Basically no soientific studies in the last 30 years are reproducible. Why would anyone still trust this shit?
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 06:45:15 UTC No. 16231953
>>16230903
>Why would anyone still trust this shit?
Brainwashing and religious cultism.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 07:56:59 UTC No. 16232032
>>16212535
Shut up, bigot! The science is settled!
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Jun 2024 03:02:21 UTC No. 16233774
>>16230903
>Why would anyone still trust this shit?
ideological motivation AKA confirmation bias
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Jun 2024 18:06:23 UTC No. 16234847
>>16233774
Also financial motivation
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Jun 2024 07:07:10 UTC No. 16235853
>>16230903
>Why would anyone still trust this shit?
bootlickers who think they can personal profit from licking the fraud artists' anuses will do so
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 02:16:57 UTC No. 16237231
>>16221768
its a quarter of a century past the deadline and there is still no evidence of any type suggesting that adding CO2 to the atmosphere has any negative consequences.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 13:54:01 UTC No. 16237783
>>16200410
You should really read that paper on the radiative effects of co2. I think co2 no longer qualifies as a mechanism of climate change
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 21:24:20 UTC No. 16238388
>>16237231
two weeks!
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 00:34:15 UTC No. 16238694
>>16199935
The CO2 madness isn't even science. It's literally anti-science. CO2 isn't a very good greenhouse gas - more common gases like water vapor are FAR more effective in that regard (and more common). The % of the atmosphere comprised of CO2 is microscopic and only a fraction of that is created by humans. Man made global warming via CO2 isn't even pseudoscience. It's just lies. It's literally defied by basic physics.
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 00:35:32 UTC No. 16238696
>>16200380
What the fuck is the deal with libs not knowing how to make graphics that make logical sense anymore?
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 00:41:47 UTC No. 16238700
>>16212597
Oh look, cherry picking the stats that work for your argument and misrepresenting stats to serve your agenda. I have never seen this before in my life. Not in our precious modern soience.
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 00:48:38 UTC No. 16238704
>>16199935
No evidence
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 19:13:02 UTC No. 16239812
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 20:54:38 UTC No. 16241594
>>16238700
>scientists have integrity
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL no
scientists fuck dogs, they have no self respect whatsoever
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 20:32:45 UTC No. 16243093
>>16230791
The planet's climate is dynamically stable because energy input is also dynamically stable. It was warmer in the 1930s & 40s and then it cooled off until the 1970s and a warming trend started and now that trend has peaked so it should cool off a little probably starting next decade or so.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 06:50:27 UTC No. 16243739
Global warming shills vandalizing Stonehenge
https://x.com/ST0NEHENGE/status/180
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 07:03:00 UTC No. 16243747
>>16199935
Never forget that all throughout 2020 all we heard from the Democratic platform was "12 more years." Fucking filthy liars. It was obvious then. It's obvious now.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 05:04:14 UTC No. 16245103
>>16229793
temperature is outside of the model's 3 sigma range, yet the so-called scientists keep on insisting their models are accurate
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 18:32:54 UTC No. 16246038
>>16212597
Prediction - It don't matter. None of this matters.
Earth can smoke CO2 all she wants, she's going to get hit by a relativistic impactor, so who cares what the temperature is?
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 20:57:57 UTC No. 16246219
>>16200410
>Absolutely, all it means is that among the experts who have looked at the data, models, and conclusions
So is it only among experts in that field or just random scientists? I cant make sense of the propaganda
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 20:59:16 UTC No. 16246222
>>16230148
>>16230148
>Where does the "black line: the official world average temperature™" come from, exactly?
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 09:15:51 UTC No. 16247159
>>16246222
https://heartland.org/wp-content/up
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 17:11:00 UTC No. 16247712
>>16246222 >>16247159
Ground station issues wouldn't affect the satellite measurements, yet both satellite and surface records show a clear warming trend.
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 05:02:15 UTC No. 16248766
>>16247712
>NASA
thats a government propaganda agency, not a scientific organization.
🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 05:08:59 UTC No. 16248773
>>16201491
Why are you such a lying jew?
>>16201631
Why would you care about what people who haven't studied global warming have to say about it? All they did was ignore people who hadn't studied the topic. Fucking retard.
🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 05:11:52 UTC No. 16248775
>>16207893
You're dumb as a nigger
1) co2 is way way way more important than shit like strip mining
2) every serious environmentalist opposes obvious things like strip mining and plastics. You being a stupid fucking mentally buckbroken retard that judges reality by what an autistic little girl(?) says doesn't change that.
🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 05:13:37 UTC No. 16248779
>>16246038
>>16238700
>>16213334
Schizophrenic downies on suicide watch
🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 05:15:27 UTC No. 16248782
>>16237231
The more you repeat obvious falsehoods the more normal people despise you
>slowly, I began to hate them
Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 03:46:51 UTC No. 16250308
>>16248775
the n word is racist
Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 04:04:23 UTC No. 16250328
>>16212535
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGV
Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 04:07:03 UTC No. 16250330
Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 04:11:20 UTC No. 16250334
>>16246038
kek based dark forest believers
i thought you all were hiding in holes
Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 14:59:21 UTC No. 16250898
This thread was moved to >>>/pol/472049707