/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #9424046

191KiB, 1920x1080, Cook_et_al._(2016)_Studies_consensus.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 01:26:47 2018 No.9424046 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>9424050 >>9424081 >>9424152 >>9424200 >>9424238 >>9424664

Climatologist here.

What would it take to convince /sci/ that climatology is a science? I keep seeing posts claiming it's not

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 01:29:00 No.9424050 Report

Quoted By: >>9424055

>>9424046
Ill answer you if you do the same for psyhology.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 01:30:27 No.9424055 Report

Quoted By: >>9424063

>>9424050
>Ill answer you if you do the same for psyhology.
But psychology isn't a science since psychologists don't use the scientific method.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 01:33:38 No.9424063 Report

Quoted By: >>9424155

>>9424055
Neither do climatologists unless you can argue otherwise.

Go on big boy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 01:48:29 No.9424081 Report

Quoted By:

>>9424046
What happened in 2014?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 02:24:55 No.9424146 Report

Quoted By: >>9424150

Climatologists believe in human caused climate change for the same reason quantum physicists believe in quantum physics. It's literally the foundation of their work; they're jobless without it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 02:27:32 No.9424150 Report

Quoted By: >>9424472

>>9424146
I could say same thing about gender theorists or astrologers. Man the fuck up soyboy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 02:28:41 No.9424152 Report

Quoted By: >>9424168 >>9424199 >>9424510

>>9424046
We aren't arguing that it isn't a science. Climatology and psychology are both very good examples of science. Shitty, unreliable, error-prone, unprovable 'science'

What good are your conclusions if you can't prove them anyway? "This is our best guess about x issue. We arrived at it by tinkering with physical machines we made a few times"

Can you imagine anything less elegant? Makes my stomach upset even thinking about it. Wish you guys had your own board to take this stuff to.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 02:29:48 No.9424155 Report

Quoted By: >>9424198 >>9424281 >>9426382 >>9426386

>>9424063
>Neither do climatologists unless you can argue otherwise.
>Go on big boy.
I'm not a "boy".

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 02:35:48 No.9424168 Report

Quoted By:

>>9424152
>prove
Lel

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 02:52:55 No.9424198 Report

Quoted By:

>>9424155
Ir?levant. Come argue with me gwbdee fluid fanny tranny.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 02:53:58 No.9424199 Report

Quoted By: >>9424208

>>9424152
And what do you study ?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 02:56:24 No.9424200 Report

Quoted By:

>>9424046
it would take years of established theory and foundations of the field
currently it has none, it's shit

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 02:59:33 No.9424208 Report

Quoted By: >>9424213 >>9424477

>>9424199
Huh? Sorry, I was counting my 300k

It's a little-known field called "mathematics". If you're in science or engineering, you've probably never heard of it. Don't even worry about it, dude. You wouldn't be able to wrap your head around it even if I tried explaining it to someone like you anyway

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 03:01:50 No.9424213 Report

Quoted By: >>9424223

>>9424208
What jobs do mathmaticians get? Not trying to be a dick just dont know

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 03:02:23 No.9424215 Report

Quoted By:

Make predictions that actually come true

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 03:04:09 No.9424223 Report

Quoted By: >>9424244

>>9424213
tenure track professorship is what most seek
if you fail at that, you can either get a comfy job in shitty industry making big bucks (see finance, programming, ...) or go for a teaching position

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 03:04:28 No.9424224 Report

Quoted By: >>9424232 >>9424255

Stop doing studies on consensus. Notice that physcicists dont do polls asking how many believe Quantum Mechanics. Chemists are doing polls about how 97% of Chemists agree that HCl is a strong acid, etc...

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO maxresdefault.jpg, 27KiB, 1280x720

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 03:06:52 No.9424232 Report

Quoted By: >>9424239 >>9424240

>>9424224
>Notice that physcicists dont do polls asking how many believe Quantum Mechanics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#History_of_interpretations

>As a rough guide development of the mainstream view during the 1990s to 2000s, consider the "snapshot" of opinions collected in a poll by Schlosshauer et al. at the 2011 "Quantum Physics and the Nature of Reality" conference of July 2011.[5] The authors reference a similarly informal poll carried out by Max Tegmark at the "Fundamental Problems in Quantum Theory" conference in August 1997. The main conclusion of the authors is that "the Copenhagen interpretation still reigns supreme", receiving the most votes in their poll (42%), besides the rise to mainstream notability of the many-worlds interpretations:

>"The Copenhagen interpretation still reigns supreme here, especially if we lump it together with intellectual offsprings such as information-based interpretations and the Quantum Bayesian interpretation. In Tegmark's poll, the Everett interpretation received 17% of the vote, which is similar to the number of votes (18%) in our poll."

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 03:08:51 No.9424238 Report

Quoted By:

>>9424046
Good luck with that!
/sci/ is full of people who don't want to be "confused by facts".
Also full of people who'd say "black is white" for no other reason than to be annoying.

Try to convince people who can do something about the problem. Rationality and evidence is wasted here.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 03:09:03 No.9424239 Report

Quoted By:

>>9424232
Thats about philosophical interpretations. Not the underlying science.

Are you saying Climatology is basically just a worldview open to interpretatio

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 03:09:20 No.9424240 Report

Quoted By:

>>9424232
that's interpretation and opinion polls, not fucking studies. it has nothing to do with the science, but the intuition behind it

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 03:10:12 No.9424244 Report

Quoted By: >>9424249

>>9424223
Will it make me go unabomber crazy? My mother taught six sigma (or is this engineering?) even though she hated it and she told me that was precisely why she focused on it, cant wrap my head around it. Right now i find quantum mexhanics and particle physics very interesting but unaware of the job market

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 03:11:28 No.9424249 Report

Quoted By: >>9424256

>>9424244
talk to your professors about it. do undergrad research and talk to your advisor about it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 03:13:25 No.9424255 Report

Quoted By: >>9424294

>>9424224
Are you dumb? Do you not understand the main practical purpose of climate study? They do these polls because you don't get the entire world to rerout their economies without being convincing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 03:13:26 No.9424256 Report

Quoted By:

>>9424249
Thanks for the advice

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 03:21:41 No.9424281 Report

Quoted By:

>>9424155
pls give me nudes

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 03:27:53 No.9424294 Report

Quoted By: >>9424295

>>9424255
Why are scientists dictating global economies?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 03:30:20 No.9424295 Report

Quoted By: >>9424298

>>9424294
Because global economies (apparently) dictate the climate. Which in turn dictates how much of our shit gets fucked up. Duh.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 03:31:12 No.9424298 Report

Quoted By: >>9424309

>>9424295
Does that mean we get to bring back eugenics too?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 03:36:06 No.9424309 Report

Quoted By: >>9424313

>>9424298
That's like trying to build a tower to the moon after sputnik, why bother?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 03:38:03 No.9424313 Report

Quoted By: >>9424326

>>9424309
Well if "xD it's science guise!!" is a valid excuse for political policy now I don't see why not. Also genetically engineered catgirls: possible? If so, when? Asking for a friend

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 03:44:28 No.9424326 Report

Quoted By: >>9424346

>>9424313
> waaah someone i don't like has an opinion that falls in line with scientific concensus, fucking NWO, don't they know politics shouldnt have to make adjustments for reality?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 03:50:30 No.9424346 Report

Quoted By:

>>9424326
Scientific consensus aside the world doesn't work the way you want it to where you can wave a few studies in front of someone's eyes and magically convert a whole nation to more sustainable energy. Perhaps if you came out of your ivory towers more often to look into making your dreams practical and figuring out how you're going to pay for it all we'd actually get something done. As usual though, I expect you to be as useless as you've always been to us as we slowly kill all natural life and have to live on processed foods for generations to come.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 05:25:32 No.9424472 Report

Quoted By: >>9425046

>>9424150
>man up soyboy
Why are cucks ad hominems always just parroting memes they've heard elsewhere?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 05:28:17 No.9424475 Report

Quoted By: >>9424588

>claims field is a science
>posts surveys trying to show scientific "consensus"
I will tell you one thing. If you are a scientist, you are a bad one.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1514245672849.jpg, 81KiB, 645x729

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 05:29:43 No.9424477 Report

Quoted By:

>>9424208
>Let's have a discussion about the validity of climatology as a Science
>Sorry, I was too busy reading numbers in an online spreadsheet
Why are you hear to larp anonymously about nothing related to the topic at hand? No one cares, because you've added zero value to this thread. Fuck off, you deadbeat loser.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 05:33:18 No.9424486 Report

Quoted By:

HEY LOOK GUYS HOW SCIENTIFIC WE ARE
97% OF US AGREE ON ONE THING
AND WE SPAM THIS IN CULTURE CONSTANTLY
TOTAL SCIENCE DUDES

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO brainlettttt.jpg, 109KiB, 588x823

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 05:46:19 No.9424510 Report

Quoted By:

>>9424152
>prove
>proven science

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 06:37:05 No.9424588 Report

Quoted By: >>9424601 >>9424607 >>9424641

>>9424475
If you're a layman who isn't willing to read hundreds of climate research papers, it's pretty useful to know the level of support from experts that have studied the subject in great detail. Human induced climate change has a 95% consensus from climatologists.

Even if you were to survey on just scientists in general, those who may or may not be specialized in climatology, the consensus is around 88% as opposed to 50% for the general public. So even with lack of expertise in the subject, those with greater understanding of the scientific method in general tend to go with the climatologists'. So clearly they think it's a real science, or maybe there's evidence that comes from other fields of science.

Looking at the issues that scientists support more than the public...

http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/

>Evolution is real: 98%
>GMOs are safe: 88%
>climate change is mostly due to human activity: 87%
>MMR vaccines: 86%
>More nuclear energy: 65%

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 06:47:05 No.9424601 Report

Quoted By: >>9424678 >>9426387

>>9424588
Consensus isn't certainty and real scientists would not support misleading the public that it is. You are a joke.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 06:50:01 No.9424607 Report

Quoted By:

>>9424588
>MMR vaccines: 86%
This statistic alone shows that they are taking opinions from scientists who don’t necessarily work in the respective fields of the questions, meaning a good portion of the responders would be just as uneducated as the general public on some issues.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 07:14:11 No.9424641 Report

Quoted By: >>9424657

>>9424588
Science is not a democracy or a popularity contest. If you don't understand this your educators have failed you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 07:29:05 No.9424657 Report

Quoted By: >>9424663 >>9424683

>>9424641
>Science is not a democracy or a popularity contest.
Why do people bring this up every damn time someone uses the word consensus? It's a complete misunderstanding.
No-one is claiming that scientists should decide what is true by running a fucking poll. They're claiming that consensus is a useful tool for non-experts, who don't have the resources or understanding to study the evidence directly.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 07:33:11 No.9424663 Report

Quoted By:

>>9424657
>No-one is claiming that scientists should decide what is true by running a fucking poll
Objectively untrue if you read any scientific opinion piece of a left-wing newspaper.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 07:33:15 No.9424664 Report

Quoted By: >>9424671

>>9424046
You seem to be conflating /sci/ with the /pol/tard infestation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 07:43:05 No.9424671 Report

Quoted By: >>9424673

>>9424664
>You seem to be conflating /sci/ with the /pol/tard infestation.
What /pol/tard infestation?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 07:44:22 No.9424673 Report

Quoted By:

>>9424671
>What /pol/tard infestation?
The people who barge into every thread to scream about "leftists and niggers".

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 07:47:03 No.9424678 Report

Quoted By: >>9424698 >>9424731

>>9424601
>Consensus isn't certainty and real scientists would not support misleading the public that it is. You are a joke.

It isn't certainty. It's certainty from experts that are specialized and knowledgeable on the subject. Certainly more certain than what the general public or any /pol/tard says. If you don't like what scientists say, nothings stopping you from researching the subject and challenging their conclusions.

>This statistic alone shows that they are taking opinions from scientists who don’t necessarily work in the respective fields of the questions

I already mentioned that. The point is that despite their lack of expertise in the subject of climate science, they're still more knowledgeable on the scientific method and those issues than the general public. At least knowledgeable enough not to read conspiracy or creationist blogs and thinks it's science.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 07:51:42 No.9424683 Report

Quoted By: >>9424690 >>9424691

>>9424657
>consensus is a useful tool for non-experts, who don't have the resources or understanding to study the evidence directly
If it was 1930s you'd be trying to convince us that blacks are an inderior form of human and that radium baths are good for you based on the consensus of esteemed researchers. Your charlatan field will remain quackery no matter how many appeals to popularity you make. Now go fudge some "models".

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 07:55:55 No.9424690 Report

Quoted By:

>>9424683
>If it was 1930s you'd be trying to convince us that blacks are an inderior form of human and that radium baths are good for you based on the consensus of esteemed researchers.
As opposed to what? Yes scientists have been wrong in the past, but they have a MUCH better track record than non-expert guessing and internet rumours.

>Now go fudge some "models".
At least try and understand the topic before posting about it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 07:56:36 No.9424691 Report

Quoted By:

>>9424683
Alright. Where is your evidence that 99% of biologists believed that blacks are an inferior form of human back in the 1930s?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 07:59:09 No.9424698 Report

Quoted By: >>9424731

>>9424678
>/pol/tard
Post disregarded.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 08:27:13 No.9424731 Report

Quoted By: >>9424916

>>9424678
>It isn't certainty. It's certainty from experts that are specialized and knowledgeable on the subject. Certainly more certain than what the general public or any /pol/tard says. If you don't like what scientists say, nothings stopping you from researching the subject and challenging their conclusions.
This is the worst type of sophistry. Neck yourself.
>>9424698
I literally predicted he would use that word. People who love to make logical fallacies to the point of throwing them in your face while sneering "what are you going to do about it?" always are cucks.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 11:10:19 No.9424916 Report

Quoted By: >>9425367

>>9424731
>t. /pol/tard
Go away, we don't want you here. This site was so much better before you faggots showed up.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 13:54:46 No.9425046 Report

Quoted By:

>>9424472
I don't know you tell me

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Jan 2018 17:41:06 No.9425367 Report

Quoted By: >>9426327

>>9424916
>This site was so much better before you faggots showed up.
Why the homophobia?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Jan 2018 01:07:45 No.9426327 Report

Quoted By: >>9426331

>>9425367
Why not?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Jan 2018 01:11:42 No.9426331 Report

Quoted By: >>9426374

>>9426327
>Why not?
There's nothing scientific or mathematical about homophobia.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Jan 2018 01:21:26 No.9426348 Report

Quoted By: >>9426401 >>9426614

>Does carbon dioxide increase mean temp of planet?
>Model it with the only 2 variables being CO2 and mean temp of planet
>It shows a correlation
>Draw no conclusions, physical or meta, offer no realistic plan(s) of action.

Current climate science will, into the future, be looked back on like we look back on Egyptians worshiping Ra for a good harvest.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Jan 2018 01:33:31 No.9426374 Report

Quoted By: >>9426381

>>9426331
You're pretty sure about that. Proofs?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Jan 2018 01:36:47 No.9426381 Report

Quoted By:

>>9426374
>You're pretty sure about that. Proofs?
Burden of proof is on you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Jan 2018 01:37:09 No.9426382 Report

Quoted By:

>>9424155
Tits or gtfo

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1515461394028.jpg, 555KiB, 900x742

Anonymous Wed 10 Jan 2018 01:41:40 No.9426386 Report

Quoted By:

>>9424155
>I'm not a "boy".
but are you big?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Jan 2018 01:41:57 No.9426387 Report

Quoted By:

>>9424601
>real scientists would not support misleading the public that it is.
And Im sure real scientists would never tell us lead gasoline is perfectly safe either but history would say otherwise

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Jan 2018 01:47:23 No.9426401 Report

Quoted By:

>>9426348
This is the problem I have with just about every "science" news article I ever read. Media (how sciene information gets to the public) never want you to know correlation does not in any way mean causation.

Just an hour ago I read an article about how "Teens who spend 5+ hours a day on their phone are twice as likely to commit suicide" spinning it as cellphones are bad. Gee, I wonder if instead it could be that those poor kids have nothing better to do all day so they fall back to using their phones instead of watching grass grow.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Jan 2018 04:13:14 No.9426614 Report

Quoted By:

>>9426348
>Model it with the only 2 variables being CO2 and mean temp of planet
Yes, because obviously climatology hasn't progressed since Arrhenius's work in 1896.
For fuck's sake, why are you posting if you can't even be bothered typing "climate model" into Wikipedia?

>Draw no conclusions, physical or meta, offer no realistic plan(s) of action.
That's simply not true.. Plenty of conclusions have been drawn, and plans have been suggested. You might not like them, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Jan 2018 14:59:23 No.9427226 Report

Quoted By:

FAKE FOSSIL SHILL THREAD IS FAKE

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches