>actually trying this hard to discredit the 3% of scientists

>actually trying this hard to discredit the <1% of scientists who don't believe in evolution
>not suspicious at all

>>8011515

Evolutionary Biology is not an empirical science though. Its still a theory. You can't go back in time and see how species evolve.

>>8011487
>97% of scientists write papers that agree on something

because those who don't basically get no grants, except for a lucky few who get funded from independant oil companies.

>>8011524

Its not a conspiracy though. Just group think and herd behavior in action. Researchers have no choice but to believe the mainstream consensus.

>>8011530
y I didn't want to imply it was.

You're just not encouraged to challenge the consensus (prime example of that is in OP's pic)

What gets me is "well we all agree on something, except that guy over there who's done his work following the scientific method and found something different. But we must be the ones who are right."

>>8011530
>Its not a conspiracy though. Just group think and herd behavior in action.
This so much. Something that happened in my field as well for over 40 years researchers used a crappy method that basically resulted in nearly every study being wrong all because no one questioned the initial seminal article.

That's why it's such fucking bullshit when retards say that engineers and physicists (who are better at modelling and simulation anyway) shouldn't be allowed to comment on climate science. Of course they fucking should because academic inbreeding is dangerous, especially in such a specialized field. You need outside perspective and those who deliver it shouldn't be bullied by poltically inclined journal editors and frat organizers who are often shoddy professionals themselves.

>>8011555
It gets better
I just checked on the 97% - 3% of climate scientists who agree/disagree...

it's all based on this study http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Guess what
they count people who don't say anything about their position as AGREEING.
the argument is
>At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics

Jesus fuck what a circle-jerk.

I just want to isolate myself from society and live with a closed community myself.
I can't depend on people like this.

>>8011530
This. 50 years ago UFO study was fairly mainstream, governments hired reputable scientists to study it. Then suddenly uttering the words "flying saucer" became career suicide. Nobody ever conclusively proved that it was bunk therefore how can it be that no mainstream scientist dares to publish a paper on the simple matter of unidentified objects in the atmosphere? Because once the bigwigs at the top of the academic pile decide it is pseudo-science the lower downs can't touch it because they will be laughed at and denied grants.

Same story with string theory, not believing in it is pretty much career suicide in most places even though there are a lot of flaws in the theory.

After careful review of this thread, I have determined that it is shit, and that there is nothing to see here. I motion that we let it go, and move on to the next item on the agenda.

>>8011609
But..... I know what is REALLY causing global warming ! Each human radiates 100W heat per hour, human population explosion is warming things up !!

>>8011633
If you killed all humans that would surely solve things. I am serious.

I'm really curious why people bother to prove AGW so much when they can't offer a single solution on how the fuck do we avoid it. Every AGW conversation goes like that.

> well AGW is true
> why?
> because of this and that and these people told its true as well and some coral reef and tree rings are proof
> how to we stop it
> we can't were fucked xD

i dont even know why people get into all these discussions for

>>8011487
Vaccine proponents try to push forward vaccinations.
>actually trying to discredit the 0% of scientists who believe vaccines cause autism
>not suspicious at all

>>8011664
carbon credits

>>8011673
what now ?

Climate change enabled by humans is something I believe, but goddamn, these guys are the biggest fucking jews I've seen in a while.

>public perception is influence by this
>time to toss out our propaganda

People shouldn't need to be convinced about scientific thought. They should find out the truth for themselves. If they instead continue to be swayed by oil companies and politicians, it makes it easier to pinpoint those who should be forcibly sterilized.

>>8011524
>because those who don't basically get no grants, except for a lucky few who get funded from independant oil companies.
That would be a really good point, if it wasn't complete bullshit.

>>8011664
I think you're confused. AGW isn't a binary thing, where we either fix it or bad stuff happens. It's a spectrum.
We can't stop all warming from occurring, because a significant amount is already in the pipeline. But we can stop making the problem worse.

>>8011487
The problems are queueing up:

- who are the climate experts and who defines them?

- how do you define level of expertise and who is doing the rating?

- are petroleum engineers and weathercasters automatically defined as non-experts or are they rated individually? And then found all each and every one of them to be non-experts?

- why this focus on consensus? Did climate science become determined by consensus?

- did the poster admit the scientists (not using the word "experts" here) are divided? As this is not a problem, in fact the norm elsewhere, why is this a problem here?


I used to be a researcher in Physics and knew this world of Science reasonably well. There are norms and processes to be followed. Short circuits are not accepted. So I am concerned when a brief review raises more red flags than a matador.

And I have not made up my mind about global warming, climate change or what they call it now.

>Science is simply taking a poll, and the most popular view is the right one

I love this meme

>>8013646
>Science is simply taking a poll, and the most popular view is the right one
No-one has claimed this.

>>8013642
>The problems are queueing up:
Why not just read the paper, rather than challenging a random thread to read it to you?

Anyway:
>Did climate science become determined by consensus?
No. Why would you think that?

>why this focus on consensus?
Because it's a useful tool for non-experts to gauge the overall state of a field, and climatology happens to have a lot of very loud non-expert discussion.

>global warming, climate change or what they call it now.
Are you fucking serious?

>>8013720
>Why not just read the paper,
It was not necessary.

>rather than challenging a random thread to read it to you?
That I did not. Why would you think so?

>>Did climate science become determined by consensus?
>No. Why would you think that?
Read in context. This is called a rhetorical question.

>Because it's a useful tool for non-experts to gauge the overall state of a field, and climatology happens to have a lot of very loud non-expert discussion.
Politicians rarely listen to experts other than during war. Nothing new here. Discussions, be it with experts, non-experts or those of unknown expertise are not new either. it appears as wasted effort for a tool for uselessness.

>serious?
Partially. The debate segued from global warming to climate change with no diminished level of certainty.

This is also one of the problems I have with the climate debate: an apparent sloppiness in terminology. In the science I learned back in the day we learned to be careful about terminology. "Global" in "global warming" should mean allover the world and with absolutely no exceptions. Were there exceptions one should rather call it "regional warming" - perhaps not as sexy but nevertheless an important issue.

So the people I asked insisted, rather loudly too, that it was global. I inquired only but my question was very badly received, as if I did not believe.

Now, some of the latest models indicate a regional cooling in the North Atlantic.

And yes, I am serious. And I have not rejected global/regional warming or whatever you prefer to call it. I am just concerned that sloppy language indicates sloppy thinking.

you wouldn't ask a geologist for an opinion on the modeling of gene transfer in evolving populations of bacterial viruses

so why would we ask someone who isn't an expect in climate science to evaluate climate models?

>>8013877
>as if I did not believe
I think you can see the danger here.

I hope you believe the earth is at the center of our system of planets anon, otherwise that would say a very bad thing about you.

>>8011517
>evolution isn't empirical
>it's still a theory
Nice tricky hook

>>8011690
They can't find the truth for themselves because they can't understand it fully. Teaching something fully to people without the background who aren't even in stem is hard

>>8013910
Interesting questions.

Mind you, geologists have a professional interest in ancient climate.
(1/2)
Anyways, so I checked the staff list of Cicero, a climate research institute:
http://www.cicero.uio.no/en/about/researchers-and-employees
Kristin Halvorsen: former politician (Socialist Left), courses in pedagogy (1.5 years) and criminology (1 year) without receiving a degree

Anne Therese Gullberg, Senior Researcher, PhD Political science, University of Oslo, 2009

(no, I am not making this up, really)

Anton Orlov, Senior Researcher (background is not stated)
Also many others have no stated background.

Bjorn Hallvard Samset, Senior Researcher, PhD in Nuclear Physics, University of Oslo (2006).

Ok, I am giving up on that one. Next...

>>8014017
(2/2)
Moving on to another institute, this time the Bjerknes Centre, another climate research institute:
http://www.bjerknes.uib.no/en/stafflist

Background info is a bit sparse but some seem to work on fjords and sediments.

Jostein Bakke , Professor, Department of Earth Science: Research interests: Lake sediments, Holocene glacier variations, Dynamics of ice sheets; relationships between terrestrial and marine proxies
(one of the better ones so far)

Climate research is perhaps too new to have people with climatic background, though high energy physics seems rather a long way off.

>>8013877
Don't you recall what befell Freeman Dyson for questioning the validity of climate models?

>>8011530
This is what deniers actually believe.

File: 1460686971254.png (868KB, 1218x686px) Image search: [Google]

868KB, 1218x686px

>>8011487
>ill
Trashed

>>8011646
It stops depression too

>>8014050
>Freeman Dyson
I had forgotten that. Strange to see someone thrown out for stating that we do not know enough..

File: HadCRUT4.png (87KB, 630x730px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 630x730px

>>8013877
>it appears as wasted effort for a tool for uselessness.
Some people don't use a tool =/= that tool isn't useful.

>Partially. The debate segued from global warming to climate change with no diminished level of certainty.
In regular conversation the two terms are interchangeable.
Technically they have slight differences, but it's not really important here.

>In the science I learned back in the day we learned to be careful about terminology.
Yes...

>Global" in "global warming" should mean allover the world and with absolutely no exceptions.
Why the hell would you think that?
It means "Globally average". Real systems have noise, as a Physicist you should know that.

>So the people I asked insisted, rather loudly too, that it was global. I inquired only but my question was very badly received, as if I did not believe.
Ignoring data based on definition games tends to be badly receive among people talking about science.

>Now, some of the latest models indicate a regional cooling in the North Atlantic.
The Earth is a big place.

>I am just concerned that sloppy language indicates sloppy thinking.
You haven't actually pointed to any sloppy language though. You've just decided to redefine "global"