đď¸ đ§ľ Climate scyentists can't do math
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:31:37 UTC No. 16225288
RETRACTED: Drought sensitivity in mesic forests heightens their vulnerability to climate change
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126
The authors of a paper published in Science have retracted their article following the discovery of calculation errors.
The article,âDrought sensitivity in mesic forests heightens their vulnerability to climate changeâ by Robert Heilmayr of the University of California, Santa Barbara and colleagues found that in drier areas, trees are less sensitive to drought and in hotter regions with a wet climate, tree growth is expected to decrease.
It has been cited once, according to Clarivateâs Web of Science. Since its publication in December, the article has been downloaded 4,641 times, posted by 154 X users, and written about by 20 news outlets and press release sites.
In January, a group led by Stefan Klesse of the Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research informed the authors of errors in their R script, which was used to characterize weather and climate in these drought-affected regions. When the authors reran their script, the statistical significance of some conclusions, and test results changed â prompting them to retract the work.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:32:35 UTC No. 16225289
âWe believe the journal has handled this process incredibly well,â Heilmayr told Retraction Watch. âThey encouraged us to work with Klesse et al. to get to the bottom of their concerns, and then followed our recommendation to retract the paper. Although we are disappointed, we were happy we were able to correct the scientific record.â
Klesse and his colleagues did not respond to our request for comment.
Four papers have been retracted from Science since the beginning of last year. The first was a similar case, in which researchers discovered an error and the authors retracted. Two involved the high-profile case of former Stanford president Marc Tessier-Lavigne, and the other was from another high-profile case at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute.
A spokesperson for Science said âIt continues to encourage us to see examples like this where a data user lets the authors know about an error and the authors work quickly to correct the record.â
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:00:53 UTC No. 16225499
R is not math and they corrected the issue when it was brought to their attention. What exactly is your complaint?
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 05:55:03 UTC No. 16226253
>>16225288
>Climate scyentists can't do math
thats also why they can't learn relevant physics topics such as thermodynamics
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 05:57:36 UTC No. 16226256
>>16225288
And you can't write "scientist" correctly. Go back to kindergarten
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 07:11:14 UTC No. 16226343
>>16225288
>The authors of a paper published in Science have retracted their article following the discovery of calculation errors.
Good. Science is working.
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 22:59:55 UTC No. 16227616
>>16226256
>And you can't write "scientist" correctly. Go back to kindergarten
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 23:21:44 UTC No. 16227646
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:48:47 UTC No. 16228696
>>16225288
They can't do math cause they're low IQ
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:52:37 UTC No. 16228707
>>16227616
>>16227646
Seriously, it's not that hard to write.
S-C-I-E-N-T-I-S-T
Repeat after me. Or do you need your Mickey Mouse keyboard with big letters so its easier?
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:54:06 UTC No. 16228712
>>16228696
*their
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:54:41 UTC No. 16228714
>>16228712
The answer is coming soon
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 04:17:01 UTC No. 16229782
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 18:05:28 UTC No. 16230720
>>16225288
if they could do math then they wouldn't think global warming is real
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 05:31:58 UTC No. 16231850
>>16230720
>if they could do math then they wouldâŚ
have studied physics so they could actually understand the topic they're supposedly so interested in (but not interested in enough to learn calculus so they learn enough physics and truly grasp the science behind it all)
đď¸ Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 05:36:12 UTC No. 16231858
>>16225288
>>16225289
>>16226253
>>16228696
>>16230720
>>16231850
GOOD MORNING SAARS
DO NOT REDEEM THE CLIMATE CHANGE BLOODY BHENCHOD
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Jun 2024 00:51:49 UTC No. 16233618
>>16231858
>being this triggered
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Jun 2024 17:45:43 UTC No. 16234814
>>16233618
soiyentismists are very thin skinned and quick to anger, they all have severe mental problems and are very immature and emotional as a result, they're like babies or small children with the tantrums they throw
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Jun 2024 04:06:04 UTC No. 16235701
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Jun 2024 06:09:53 UTC No. 16235798
>>16225288
Here's a good pic to post in any AGW thread.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Jun 2024 11:12:06 UTC No. 16236111
>>16235798
Now, superimpose the graph on temperature...
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Jun 2024 18:52:11 UTC No. 16236647
>>16225288
Starting to think this board's title would better reflect reality if it were "Science OR Math".
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 04:19:45 UTC No. 16237338
>>16235798
how does that affect sunspot numbers
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 20:35:36 UTC No. 16238282
>>16225288
"""climate science"""" is a math free branch of science, you don't even need to pass calculus to get a degree in """climate science""""
the field is completely fake
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 06:42:33 UTC No. 16239079
>>16238282
Its not even a real branch of science, they just took political activism and shilling and falsely relabeled it with the "science" brand name
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 02:35:24 UTC No. 16240424
>>16225288
they dumb lol
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 05:30:32 UTC No. 16242228
>>16225288
>Drought sensitivity in mesic forests heightens their vulnerability to climate change
False premise, plants become less sensitive to drought with increased availability of atmospheric CO2
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 03:12:11 UTC No. 16243545
>>16242228
thats one of the best things about adding CO2 to the atmosphere. previously barren desert regions will be able to flourish regardless their meager availability of water because the plants that are able to grow there will become more tolerant of the aridness
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 05:08:16 UTC No. 16245108
>>16243545
It will also be possible to irrigate more land with less water.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 11:31:12 UTC No. 16245437
>>16243545
Nice sales pitch. However, it's telling that you didn't provide any quantitative projection, no numbers at all. Could it be because a CO2 increase isn't a net benefit after all?
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 04:35:09 UTC No. 16246826
>>16245437
you can look up figures on stomata girth and evaporation as a function of atmospheric co2 concentration yourself.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 09:17:44 UTC No. 16247161
>>16246826
>figures on stomata girth and evaporation as a function of atmospheric co2 concentration
Long way to go from that to a meaningful projection about "barren desert regions being able to flourish". I'm not asking if CO2 fertilisation can aid some species to an extent. I'm asking about the evidence that the CO2 increase is a net benefit.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 17:45:23 UTC No. 16247778
>>16247161
>evidence that the CO2 increase is a net benefit
the silence is deafening
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 08:29:30 UTC No. 16248960
>>16247778
If you want information on the topic of stomata girth and evaporation as a function of atmospheric co2 concentration you know where to look it up. The only reason you don't bother is that you're not interested in learning about science.
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 08:31:08 UTC No. 16248962
>>16248960
You refuse to cite your sources or share any links because you have none
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 11:49:57 UTC No. 16249074
>>16248960
The question wasn't whether CO2 concentration had a certain effect on some plants. I asked about evidence saying a CO2 increase is a net benefit. It's telling that you've provided none, and refused to look at the bigger picture.
Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 06:38:16 UTC No. 16250438
>>16225288
>and written about by 20 news outlets
None of those news outlets will cover the retraction
Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 22:15:11 UTC No. 16251700
>>16250438
Thats how the propaganda business works. The lie goes on the top of the front page and gets covered for days, the retraction goes on the bottom of page 18 once and is never mentioned again
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 17:11:39 UTC No. 16252976
>>16249074
prove co2 is bad
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 17:15:09 UTC No. 16252982
>>16252976
>prove a negative
Buddy I don't think that's how "proving" something works
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 17:16:31 UTC No. 16252984
>>16252982
that's not what proving a negative means dumbfuck
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 17:16:51 UTC No. 16252985
>>16225288
I'm sure they made that "mistake" totally by accident
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 17:32:05 UTC No. 16253011
>>16252976
>changing the subject
Thanks for conceding. After several days of asking for evidence it became clear the sales pitch from >>16243545 is bollocks, as nobody's managed to back it up.
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 19:05:39 UTC No. 16253207
>>16253011
Just on the off chance you are human, you do realize you are responding to a bot in an auto bump thread right?
Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 06:49:52 UTC No. 16254343
>>16253207
>ITS A CONSPIRACY!!!
https://www.healthcentral.com/condi
Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 07:01:42 UTC No. 16254349
>>16253207
It's not a human, it's a retard
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 05:26:57 UTC No. 16256081
>>16252982
>I can't prove CO2 is bad
but its easy to prove that it's good
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 20:44:53 UTC No. 16257212
>>16229782
come on, anon, it's obvious you are an illiterate oaf who is now simply trying to pretend correct spelling has nothing to do with how well-read someone is.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 21:25:16 UTC No. 16257275
>>16247161
>I'm asking about the evidence for a subjective, qualitative value-statement based on arbitrary weighting of what constitutes benefit
Dishonest
How do you want the "net benefit" quantified? How could such a thing possibly be measured?
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 21:29:10 UTC No. 16257282
>>16252982
It's very easy, just reformulate the proposition
>CO2 is a net benefit
There, I've given you a FALSIFIABLE statement. Now supply evidence that it is not a net benefit ie falsify my statement.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 21:34:39 UTC No. 16257291
>>16256081
That's in a closed lab. Also it's hard to grow trees when your front yard is flooded with seawater.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 21:45:37 UTC No. 16257309
>>16257291
>That's in a closed lab
How else do you think they could control the CO2 level?
>your chart
50mm in 5 decades is nothing lmao.
Tectonic plate movement and post glacial rebound vastly eclipse it. Picrel.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 21:56:48 UTC No. 16257323
>>16257291
are tectonics accounted for in that graph? and how are they measured? and how long until solar system is flooded?
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 19:38:19 UTC No. 16258592
>>16225288
They can't do math because they're low IQ
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 19:44:46 UTC No. 16258601
>>16225288
No one cares about your shitty thread that you need to bump every day from the last page
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 07:15:00 UTC No. 16259425
>>16225288
How come papers that cite retracted papers aren't also retracted?
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 22:00:30 UTC No. 16260309
>>16259425
because soientists only care about getting their name in the soience vanity press, they don't care about pursuing truth or knowledge, they just pretend that they do because they need to get to do so to justify their fancy job titles
Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 18:52:42 UTC No. 16261708
>>16260309
Thats the difference between science and academia.
Academia isn't science, its the polar opposite
Anonymous at Mon, 1 Jul 2024 08:03:51 UTC No. 16262580
>>16235790
we should be able to use that data to calculate an optimal average temperature for the planet.
Anonymous at Tue, 2 Jul 2024 05:56:42 UTC No. 16263894
>>16235790
amazing that deaths from cold are 8% of all deaths. we need to heat this planet up ASAP, lets see if we can do it before winter rolls around again
Anonymous at Tue, 2 Jul 2024 20:45:02 UTC No. 16264909
>>16225288
They don't make those mistakes by accident. They intentionally fake data and results in order to mislead the general public and then when they get caught they lie some more and pretend it was a mistake.
Here is climate scientist Stephen Schneider of NOAA in the October 1989 issue of Discover magazine openly admitting that climate scientists intentionally mislead the public about global warming as a means of forwarding their political goals:
>Stephen Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research described the scientistsâ dilemma this way:
>âOn the one hand, as scientists, we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing butâwhich means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well.
>And like most people weâd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the publicâs imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This âdouble ethical bindâ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.â
Anonymous at Wed, 3 Jul 2024 06:34:57 UTC No. 16265564
>>16264909
>climate scientists intentionally mislead the public about global warming as a means of forwarding their political goals:
Its not just about forwarding their political goals, its also about enriching themselves financially. The more they shill global warming the better their job security gets
Anonymous at Wed, 3 Jul 2024 21:56:35 UTC No. 16266714
>>16264909
How dumb does a guy need to be to publicly admit that?
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Jul 2024 17:54:19 UTC No. 16267856
>>16266714
climate science is a low IQ discipline, you can get a degree in climate science without passing a single calculus class. the discipline was invented for the purpose of allowing low IQ political activists a means to get the clout of a science degree even if they weren't qualified for one
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Jul 2024 21:21:22 UTC No. 16268100
>>16267856
This anon fucks
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 19:33:32 UTC No. 16269370
>>16267856
There isn't a single well known equation that comes from climate science, the entire field is non-anylitical
đď¸ Anonymous at Sat, 6 Jul 2024 20:07:55 UTC No. 16270678
Stop guessing start learning at Sun, 7 Jul 2024 02:04:22 UTC No. 16271005
>>16225288
You fools havenât even graduated college and taken basic statistics class.
But but the globe is cooling in some areas.
No shit Sherlock
Itâs called variance in the dataset.
How many times does this have to be fucking said? itâs the AVERAGE global temperature not daily fluctuations.
Stop cherry picking data and info to support your denial