Has there ever been an issue that 99% of scientists agreed on,

>>8097524

The biggest one i can think of is earth being the center of the universe. The church was powerful and to have any sort of career or influence you had to follow the church's way. Most people are followers and don't want to rock the status quo.

I think climate change is somewhat similar. You have 99% who will agree to whatever their funders believe (government) because it puts food on the table. I think the recent discrepencies in the actual data and models showing the warming isn't as severe and perhaps the feedback mechanisms are stronger than thought puts funding at risk for so many people that they are just doing what any would do if they were at risk of losing their job.

>>8097524
GMOs and vaccines being safe.

>>8097524
There hasn't, I'm guessing because the scientists and politics motivating it are too powerful to fail.

There was a thing called climate gate a while back, but it turned out to be a lie fabricated by environmentalists. Basically an environmentalist targeted the Cato institute (often targeted because they assert opinions that go against the mainstream i.e. Supporting smoking and denying climate change) and made it look like they were trying to hide information, but they actually weren't. Doesn't sound like that's what you're looking for though.

Wasn't lamarckianism pushed in Soviet Russia the same way (or something)? What am I thinking of?

>>8097645
>lamarckianism
It has been proven many times in modern science

>>8097553
>You have 99% who will agree to whatever their funders believe (government)

Except the governments of the world would really prefer if it weren't true and they would fund climate science to pretty much the same level since climate science is economically useful independent of global warming.

Eugenics

Race differences today

File: 1451167035489.jpg (40KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 320x320px

>>8097553
>The biggest one i can think of is earth being the center of the universe. The church was powerful and to have any sort of career or influence you had to follow the church's way

Read a fucking history book before speaking out of your ass.

>>8097663
>>8097679
But they were right about these, we just pretend they were wrong because of muh feelings

>>8097655
You forgot to post a gorilla

>>8097687

That's the point

99% of current scientists are wrong about it today simply because of those feelz or bias.

>>8097613
>GMOs being safe
I can see this one

>vaccines being safe
Kill yourself

Theory of relativity

>>8097524
>Has there ever been an issue that 99% of scientists agreed on, and then we found out that it was just politically motivated and the scientists were wrong or lied
There never has been.

There have been many incidents, however, in which industry has hired scientists to provide false information to go against the consensus regarding their activities and/or products, or otherwise created campaigns to rail against scientific findings that were not in their interest.

>>8097700
You do realize if the theory of relativity weren't a thing, the satellites that allow this internet function wouldn't work.

>>8097756
Or maybe that Einstein was just a hack reading off data from Poincare and Hilbert and Planck.

homosexuality being a mental disorder

we're getting there with trannies too

>>8097765
That wouldn't make relativity wrong, that's just make the credit misplaced.

>>8097773
*not being a mental disorder

>>8097773
Psychology only deals with your adjustment within a particular social context, not absolutes. Whether or something is or isn't a mental disorder, or merely a variant within the norm, depends entirely on whether or not it disrupts your ability to function within that society.

In other words, mental disorders are social constructs. If schizophrenia wasn't disruptive to society, it wouldn't be classified as a mental disorder, only yet another type of variant. Homosexuality and the like are only mental disorders so long as they are considered disruptive to society.

Granted that's also among the reasons psychology is largely pseudoscience.

>>8097755
Examples?

There's a lot that science has been wrong about. Some of it was politically motivated. A lot of it was just plain wrong. For example, eugenics seemed tenable at one point.

>>8097756
Right about satellites. However, the internet works just fine without satellites - except for those on a satellite connection. All of the traffic goes through physical cables, including undersea cables.

>>8097865
Former doctor andrew wakefield.

>>8097524
>that 99% of scientists agreed on, and then we found out that it was just politically motivated and the scientists were wrong

Happens every now and then. A relatively recent one would be peptic ulcers and H. Pylorii.

It's less about political motivation than a kindergarten-level bias "of course the first explanation I heard is the right one!"

>>8098102
I didn't realize he was influenced by industry to promote his bullshit.

>>8097613
1/10 you tried

File: totally_not_pr0n.jpg (56KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 800x450px

>>8097865
Aspartame, DDT, asbestos, nicotine, "four servings of grain", hive collapse, thalidomide, hydrocodone, the APA on torture, Coca-cola bribing the GEBN, pharmaceutical companies caught bribing the Medical Journal of Australia, Anna Ahimastos fake data being published in the NEJM and JAMA on behalf of the industry, and, of course, Wei-Hock Soon.

...among others...

Sometimes the consensus is just wrong, of course, such as with the Theory of Aether, but it's rarely a political conspiracy, generally, the political conspiracy and anti-science money comes in when the consensus is right, and stepping on someone's pocket book.

>>8097765
>Or maybe that Einstein was just a hack reading off data from Poincare and Hilbert and Planck.

Oh, this again?

>>8097524
A lot of the people who oppose climate change are paid to say they oppose it, like politicians. Or they are extremely uneducated and thus their opinion doesn't matter.

>>8098520
You mean like the so called "scientists" who are paid to say it's real and man made?
2/10 for effort.

>>8098522
By who? The entire fossil fuel industry is against climate science, which is the single most profitable industry on the planet. Where is the dozens of billions of dollars on the side of climate science?

>>8098536
good, you understand SOME business.
Now imagine if you could influence stocks and policies around the world.

>>8098522
>You mean like the so called "scientists" who are paid to say it's real and man made?
Isn't it kind of telling that the only leg you have to stand on is asserting the existence of a giant world-wide conspiracy, with barely anything that even looks like evidence, made up of people who argue constantly and cooperate as well as a bag of cats, and no clear goals to unite them?

Why would even one climatologist want to take part in something that vast, time consuming and pointless, let alone almost all of them?

>>8098578
>Why would even one climatologist want to take part in something that vast, time consuming and pointless, let alone almost all of them?

This is the most plausible explanation to many creationists and other religious people. I mean, when your options are that your holy books are wrong (impossible), what else is left? A global conspiracy seems pretty plausible, especially when your holy book says that a global government is going to herald the end of days, which we're living in dontchaknow (sarcasm).

>>8098578
>Why would even one climatologist want to take part in something that vast, time consuming and pointless, let alone almost all of them?
it's called circlejerking. People love to do that. It really does feel nice to be surrounded by people who agree with you, and to antagonize people who attack your religion.

Have you tried getting a grant to disprove man's influence on climate? I'm pretty sure you can't.

evolution

But seriously though, epigenetics probably surprised almost all biologists/geneticists

>>8098589
>grant to disprove
That's not how scientific inquiry works.

>>8097755
In modern times, it's more or less about industry. They have all the resources required to set up as many front groups as necessary to convincingly flood the literature and confuse the debate as a whole. Coupled with the scientific publishing industry and the nature of "peer review", that's a lot of power to get what you want.

>>8098604
but that's exactly how it works.
Falsification. look it up.

>>8098602
>epigenetics
Yea, it surprised them back in 1940. Or earlier. I only know offhand that "epigenetics" as a word was created around 1940.

>>8098589
>it's called circlejerking. People love to do that. It really does feel nice to be surrounded by people who agree with you, and to antagonize people who attack your religion.
Okay, I hope you just have no idea how science works: All of reputation, money, and fame out there exists for whoever can stand up on a stage and piss on everyone else's work. The more people's work you can piss on, the better. If those people are dead, especially if they've been dead a while, that's even better again.

Circle-jerking gets your name at the bottom of the acknowledgements of a paper. Pissing on work gets your name on the front cover of the history books.

>>8097524

geocentric universe

>>8098613
It didn't mean back then what it means now though. I'm pretty sure the concept of heritable changes in gene expression is less than 30 years olds. I still remember being told in high school lamarckism was completely wrong. It still is mostly wrong, but the examples they used and the justification didn't seem to imply a knowledge of it. for example, I remember being told specifically that buff people are only more likely to have buff children because they will impose their lifestyle on them. Schools are generally slow to assimilate new knowledge, but I doubt they're 70 years behind.

Anyway OP there's your answer. the vast majority were wrong.

>>8098627
It actually did mean that.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/03/25/epigenetics-aint-magic/

And no. Lamarckism is still completely wrong. Lamarckism is the idea that speciation is driven by heritable changes made outside of the germ line, such as using muscles makes the muscle stronger, which is heritable to offspring, in spite of muscles having nothing to do with sperm or egg. Lamarckism is still just completely wrong.

>>8097524
saturated fats thought to cause heart disease
cholesterol thought to cause heart disease
trans fats tought to be safe
saturated fats thought to cause diabetes
...

The anthropogenic CO2 warming self-destruction is bullshit, but it is politically turned into a “consensus” among scientists who observe that climate change has happened, as it has been happening for billions of years. BTW, climate change used to be called global warming, but now it’s not warming anymore.

>>8098589
>I'm pretty sure
No, you're pretty fckn far from sure.

>>8098632
The current definition is much stricter and waddington's definition certainly didn't imply anything novel. According to this, evidence for epigenetics seems to have started building in the 1980s and the implications of the evidence didn't become apparent until the 1990s
http://www.whatisepigenetics.com/fundamentals/
>Lamarckism is still completely wrong
i wasn't really arguing that which is why i said still mostly wrong. My point was that the justification used against it showed a misunderstanding of genetics. And the concept of traits acquired during an organisms lifetime being heritable was something thought to have been dismissed long ago, that turned out to be wrong.

>>8097756
theory of relativity is a math equations. all that fancy things like black holes, wormholes, space-continuum are math objects and not real objects.
what went wrong is that theory bring back idealistic approach to sciene. today all physics is idealistic.

>>8097756
>You do realize if the theory of relativity weren't a thing, the satellites that allow this internet function wouldn't work.
FUNFACT: data goes through big fat cables under the ocean

>>8098643
I've been meaning to learn about physics properly. Had a lot of people practically act like I was brain damaged when I didn't agree with their notion of what motion and location were.

>>8098641
>mostly wrong
No, completely wrong.

Again:

Epigenetics in terms of real world effects is basically isolated to effects inside of a single organism that does not go on through the germ line. Some minor effects may persist through the germ line, but still they will eventually end.

Lamarckianism is about change in populations over time. Lamarkianism is simply false.

/All/ of the important stuff for speciation happens at the genes, and absolutely nothing with epigenetics. Thus Lamarck was still quite wrong.

And wtf, even your own link gives the date of 1941 as the naming of it, with simply "renewed interesting" in the 1990s. The string "198" doesn't even appear directly in your link. Did you even read it!?

>>8098648
>No, completely wrong.
I literally just gave you an example of how a concept of it was right. Yes he was wrong in the specific case, but i'm talking about a specific concept. I don't know if you're too autistic to stop trying to disprove lamarckism when no one is saying it's 100% correct or you're too stupid to see the correlation between lamarckism and epigenetics
> is the idea that an organism can pass on characteristics that it has acquired during its lifetime to its offspring (also known as heritability of acquired characteristics or soft inheritance)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism
>that an organism can pass on characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_inheritance
> the important stuff for speciation happens at the genes, and absolutely nothing with epigenetics
You're the only one bringing up speciation. it's like you saw lamarckism and didn't bother to read anything else.
>And wtf, even your own link gives the date of 1941 as the naming of it
are you illiterate? I never denied it was invented in 1941, i even implicitly accept it here >>8098627
>It didn't mean back then what it means now though
and I explain why that's not significant in the post you JUST responded to.
>The current definition is much stricter...certainly didn't imply anything novel
try reading before responding
>The string "198" doesn't even appear directly in your link. Did you even read it!?
did you?
> Studies performed by Feinberg and Vogelstein in 1983...
The page goes on. Again, you'd know that if you actually read something and tried to understand it before sperging out and replying.
fucking trips, always the worst posters on every board. +1 to filter at least.

>>8098648
>>8098699
Kek. Tripfag btfo.

There is a formula for calculating the chance of a conspiracy being true:

L=1-e to the power of -t(1-Psi to the power of N(t))

L= the chance of a leak, t= time since the start of the complot, Psi= the chance per person to leak and N(t)= the amount of people who know the truth at time t

If global warming wasn't true, than there should be 405.000 people involved and should've leaked after 3 years and 9 months. But this is just probability.

Of course you can always ask yourself: Who benefits? If global warming wasn't real it would benefit almost every buisness and country in the world. If it is real it would benefit maybe greenpeace or something?

Global warming, race(its existence and effect on IQ and behaviour), GMOs, vaccines, socialism back in the 20th century.

The vast majority of scientists 100 years ago believed that races were a real thing and that intelligence was dependent on your genes. They also thought that homosexuality, transgenderism and pedosexuality were mental disorders.

>>8098743
Yet you imply in the same breath that there meaningfully exists such a thing as a "real" mental disorder.

Intelligence is relative, and most certainly is dependent in part on your genes. Genetics form the baseline. Else you could be a tomato and do just fine.

You're a product of your time and place as well, and ultimately, on the "not there yet" part of history.

File: worldgoverment.jpg (255KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 1000x1000px

>>8098727
>Who benefits?
I ain't even Columbo

>>8097524
>that 99% of scientists agreed on
Pedophilia is a disease. Sex before age of 18 will result to so-called "psychologial trauma".

File: Gordon Freeman.gif (521KB, 386x217px) Image search: [Google]

521KB, 386x217px

>>8098648
>Epigenetics in terms of real world effects is basically isolated to effects inside of a single organism that does not go on through the germ line. Some minor effects may persist through the germ line, but still they will eventually end.
holy fuck, take a genetics class. there's actually quite a few epigenetic changes known to be heritable
>http://ajpregu.physiology.org/content/299/3/R711.short
>https://chd.ucsd.edu/_files/winter2009/Morgan.08.pdf
>http://faculty.uca.edu/benw/biol4415/papers/Youngson2008.pdf
to say nothing of GENE IMPRINTING

>>8098845
>The Pope
I.. honestly can't tell if you're serious or not.

>>8098643
>black holes aren't real things
Ok kiddo

>>8097692
Or did you just miss it? Look again.

>>8099290
Have you ever seen one?

>>8098638
>climate change used to be called global warming, but now it’s not warming anymore.


Nice meme.

>>8099290
>Researcher shows that black holes do not exist
http://phys.org/news/2014-09-black-holes.html

File: gpstimewarp1.png (511KB, 1875x1517px) Image search: [Google]

511KB, 1875x1517px

>>8098643
Except it works or your damn phone GPS and Google map's locator, and anything else involving a geosynchronous satellite would go to shit along with a good chunk of the aviation industry. Nevermind the fact that nearly all the craziest shit it predicted has been observed (including consequences of the theory Einstein thought we never could).

>>8099389
Where did that even come from, I see it a lot.

File: maxresdefault (33).jpg (152KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 1280x720px

>>8099392
We'll just ignore the fact that we observe them all the time, and if relativity wasn't a thing, that it's one hell of a coincidence that the satellite clocks are off by just the amount Einstein predicted they would be, and have to be compensated accordingly.

>>8098993
Carbon tax is the new age tithe obviously. Sky fairies and sodomite priests are old and broken, climate priests and carbon tithes are the new hotness.

>>8097687
>>8097695
No, today in the modern world most adults understand that genetics is related to race because people of the same race tend to breed with each-other.
What's your point, what do you want us to do about that. Its effectively the ancestry of white peoples fault that black people have an average lower intelligence, they spent a long time breeding the best and fasted workers, who tend to be less intelligent, and culling those who weren't.
Your solution to this effectively non-existent problem? Kill off the bottom 90% on the flawless intelligence scale we have today? That would mean you would be killed off too unless you're Asian. And dropping off a large portion of humanity would reduce the rate of human progress more than just raising the average intelligence of the human race through better education.

>>8098955
>holy fuck, take a genetics class. there's actually quite a few epigenetic changes known to be heritable
And again, none of them last for enough generations in a stable way to participate in a meaningful way in speciation.

And again, epigenetics is /not/ the idea that by stretching one's neck, this changes the epigenetics of the germ line so that their children will have longer necks. Lamarck was just wrong.

File: wtfamireading (2).jpg (43KB, 460x485px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 460x485px

>>8099411
Climate change is a Catholic conspiracy theory to reinstitute tithes...

...and you wonder why people don't take you guys seriously.

How autistic do you have to be to trip as "scientist" anyway?

>>8099411
Pasta

>>8097524
I think this argument is two binary. I have spoken to scientists who are skeptical about the possible effects of climate change. They don't disagree that the climate has, will and likely is changing. They disagree with proposed models of future warming and the degree of human influence, not with climate change its self.

Saying this I am a geologist, so I, and the other scientists I talk to are probably quite biased. Still a better understanding of CO2 levels over geological time would make anyone skeptical.

- Homosexuality as a brain disorder
- Women's Hysteria as a brain disorder
- Black and Women's Rights as a brain disorder
- Monsters existing in the Ocean
- Most of the shit about Black Holes
- Scientific Racism
- Freudian anything
- Lobotomies

>>8099486
"Man as machine".
We'd had the capacity to realize there did not exist such a thing as "mental disorder" and "mental illness" for centuries besides. It's philosophically disjointed from the start.

Unsurprisingly it's always been used for political purposes. Instill and maintain this deluded way of framing the world, and you can push people to just about anything.

>>8099442
Wrong again:
>http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/scientists-discover-how-epigenetic-information-could-be-inherited

And take that goofy "Scientist" name off please.
You're clearly not a scientist as last night you stated you completely reject empiricism while you went on wild social rants dictating what others do and believe when you're not looking at them.

You're a classic example of the Dunning Kruger Effect. I'd place money on you reading a magazine or watching a documentary, hearing that most people don't "get" science, and now you think you're special because you "got" incorrectly watered down popular science...
...and so you go onto 4chan of all places and call yourself a scientist.
WHILE REJECTING EMPIRICISM AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

>>8099459
Pretty autistic. /snark

Also, that's ableist you know. Knock that off.

>>8099495
>Mental illness isn't real
>Science and Scientists everywhere are lying
Ok then.

>>8099499
You're linking to a popular non-academic report of the paper? There's an almost equal chance that they got the finding 100% wrong that they got it right. Did you actually read the paper? Let me go see if I can find the paper.

>>8099504
They're not lying about the underlying data. What they've observed is often real. They just have an incorrect high level opinion about what the data means, and unfortunately this spills over into how they and society approach these "problems".

>>8099499
From your own popular news article, from the author:

>It seems that while the precursors to sperm and eggs are very effective in erasing most methylation marks, they are fallible and at a low frequency may allow some epigenetic information to be transmitted to subsequent generations. The inheritance of differential epigenetic information could potentially contribute to altered traits or disease susceptibility in offspring and future descendants.

Sounds pretty much what I've been saying. They observed that it could survive for a few organism generations, maybe, but that it will probably be wiped out. Ergo, basically no effect on the larger picture of speciation.

And again, the example that they gave is that famine conditions may selectively turn on and off genes that might be inheritable to the next human offspring, but this is still not Lamarckianism! Lamarckianism is the very specific idea that an organism can improve some physical aspect about itself, muscle strength, neck length, through practice, and that these changes are heritable to offpsring. This example of famine turning on and off some genes is not that!

>>8099505
>"Science isn't Science because I made a baseless statement and the proof contradicts me. Therefore the proof is wrong"

>>8099516
>Mental illness isn't real
>Mental illness isn't a disease
>The Science is right and they're not wrong
>But because politics; I will say they're wrong

>>8099517
Aka, flip flopping because you're psychotic.
If this was a tribe, we would have thrown your "always wrong but packpeddles to save face" ass out a long time ago.

>>8099536
Dumb (willfully lacking) assessment of what's happening.

If you don't have a real basis for your opinions, just don't respond. It really is that easy.

>>8099541
>If you don't have a real basis for your opinions, just don't respond. It really is that easy.

Exception Psychiatry and Neuropsychiatry do have a basis.
The "Science is a liar...sometimes" argument is baseless nonsense.
The burden of proof when you claim Psychiatry is a lie is all on you... Psychiatrists have proven their case.
If you're going to say it's wrong, then you have to point out where. Exactly where.
No ambiguous statements.

>>8099548
You're just looping back on yourself and repeating the same thing, as though I never said anything at all. Read what I say and actually think instead of just responding.

Again, if you don't have a real basis and years of thought behind your opinion, just stop responding.
It really is that easy.

>>8099517
>and that these changes are heritable to offpsring. This example of famine turning on and off some genes is not that!
But it is. Clearly they're heritable to offspring. You're moving the goalpost after being shown up and saying "well it doesn't last long". Even on then you were probably still not right. From the link he gave you, "Our research demonstrates how genes could retain some memory of their past experiences, revealing that one of the big barriers to the theory of epigenetic inheritance - that epigenetic information is erased between generations - should be reassessed." Stop moving the goalpost. Just take the L and let it be. You're only making yourself look worse and worse every time you carry on.

>>8099502
You're so reddit it hurts.

>>8099553
Asking for proof or counter-proof isn't looping.
It's science.

>>8099421
>Its effectively the ancestry of white peoples fault that black people have an average lower intelligence, they spent a long time breeding the best and fasted workers, who tend to be less intelligent, and culling those who weren't.

This is what liberals actually believe
Of course your whole argument falls apart at a glance but hey who cares about facts huh?

> this effectively non-existent problem
You think a population of sub 80 iq animals can maintain civilization? Dysgenics is a reality, IQ is declining at maybe 5 points a decade among the west

>>8099548
>>8099553
Actually, before you respond I'll bother to make this clear and explicit.

Science provides hard data, it does not provide high level implication and meaning for that data. That relies on human interpretation, logic, and reason. This is why I say the science and what it shows, is often real. The opinions of experts are often incorrect.

To know by what means they can be incorrect, we need to consider what the ideal of identifying this notion of "mental illness", or deviation from a defined norm, actually is, because the definition is tied to the means and the ends. Modern day it's shifting to be more about traits and experiences that are perceived negatively by the individual. Historically this wasn't always the case. But nonetheless, the ideal is for the individual and those around them, to experience things positively.

What is the problem with this? Put concisely, there are many ways to address something, and of yet, modern psychiatry has failed abysmally in defining basic features of these supposed illness as well as properly identifying causative elements. It's framed as simply mechanical failure, and then vaguely described as "chemical imbalance", before begin to cycle people through drugs which is the equivalent of throwing shit at a wall until some clump sticks "well enough". Private interest is certainly involved, and a population indoctrinated into thinking mental illness exists only perpetuates a complete lack of proper support structures and the available of real meaningful solutions. Telling a kid (they're usually children or adolescents) a functional equivalent of "you're broken, here are your drug options" is detrimental.

Cognitive behavioral therapy and specialized treatment are the only ways forward. You cannot take a mechanistic approach without also acknowledging the person themselves IS that very machine. The brain is composed of complex feedback loops, and you can't leave out environment or personal patterns.

>>8099591
>Science provides hard data, it does not provide high level implication and meaning for that data.

1.) You're bringing social meaning into this
2.) Meaning in the sense of causation IS part of science

And then you go on to rant about complete nonsense you pulled out of your ass.
You use zero scientific nor logical terms.
It's just a rant with no substance.

Humans are machines.
Mental illness is a disease.
Psychiatrist is a science.
The only issue in Psychiatry is when they stereotype people, don't check on invidual facts, and end up labeling someone that isn't ill.
That's the only issue in psychiatry.

>>8099591
I ran out of characters. Drug-based approaches have potential in some cases, but it must be acknowledged as a lifestyle choice. Not a necessity. There are too many people walking around saying "my meds", and the language speaks volumes itself. It becomes identity.

At present there are multiple models of schizophrenia alone. No one knows how any of this actually works. Psychiatry is such a fractured mess of a field that treatment success might as well be random noise. There is no real signal. It's just a mess of people who, even if satisfied with the outcome, could be living better lives. It's more or less a randomized assembly line of finding the right drug for the right you.

>>8099603
Except the definition of "mental illness" is entirely social. Psychology does not deal in absolutes. Whether or not something is a mental illness is entirely based on whether it interferes with the subjects performance within a society.

Mental illness is literally a social construct. Which is among the reasons why psychology gets repeatedly accused of being, at best, a soft science.

>>8099612
This.

>>8099603
>1.) You're bringing social meaning into this
I'm bringing my own sense of meaning into this. That's the basis of this conversation. Use your head.

>2.) Meaning in the sense of causation IS part of science
No, it isn't. The scientific method is about isolating factors contributing to a given result such that you can make it repeatable. The rest is all opinion, the only fact is what you saw happen and how accurate you know your measures to be.

Example:
"Urinary salsolinol and phenyletylamine levels are elevated in those exhibiting symptoms of schizophrenia. They also mirror amphetamine psychosis. Taking into account what we know about the metabolic features in the related regions, and their machinery, it might well be that psychotic delusions and dysfunctioning pyramidal cells is in part caused by too much dopamine in the mesolimbic pathway. We should try partial agonists. It appears that psychotic episodes reduce, but patients have a flattened affect [...] etc."
This is a scientific observation. It describes reasoning based on tested and observed phenomena.

"Mental illness must be treated with drugs and is defined by a group of people who are experts on humans. Those with mental illness must be encouraged to seek treatment, such that they can be fixed."
This is not science. It's an argument about the ethics, the human condition, and built on top of personal philosophy then reinforced by social feedback loops and dogma. Usually rejecting better approaches.

>That's the only issue in psychiatry.
How do you find out if someone is ill, and decide what the meaning of this "illness" is?

>>8099612
>I need to type nonsense more
Stop.

>>8099619
>Genes and quantifiable actions aren't science
Wrong.

>Psychology does not deal in absolutes.
Psychology isn't psychiatry. Psychologists don't define the qualifications of mental illness, Psychiatrists do.

>Whether or not something is a mental illness is entirely based on whether it interferes with the subjects performance within a society.
Which is both qualitative and quantitative

>Mental illness is literally a social construct.
No, see above.

>Which is among the reasons why psychology gets repeatedly accused of being, at best, a soft science.
Again, psychology doesn't have anything to do with mental illness.

>>8099624
Stop samefagging and stop making conspiracy claims. You provide no qualitative nor quantitative terms or data. You're babbling nonsense. Language must contain qualitative and quantitative concepts.

>>8099640
Psychology or psychiatry, he's right, in that what does and does not entail a mental disorder, a psychological disorder, is entirely predicated on whether or not it interferes with one's functioning within a society.

Homosexuality stopped interfering with one's functioning within this society, as soon as people stopped firing and killing each other over it.

Society, not science, in the end, decides what does and does not constitute a mental disorder, as science's "qualitative and quantitative" definition relies entirely on observations of that compatibility.

>>8099640
>Stop samefagging
That isn't me.

>making conspiracy claims.
Says it all. Hopefully you'll wake up and make an attempt to develop your own ideas about the world, even if they don't agree with my own. The control and motivational structures are fairly obvious anyway. It's not even conspiracy, it's just how the human machine works.

Planck said scientific progress is a series of funerals. And he's correct. That's why you get repeating outcomes and entrenchment such that you can't even test bipolar people for goddamn food allergies despite knowing that histamine is a modulatory neurotransmitter, you can't check for dietary deficiencies, you can't look for underlying sources of mental conflict and chronic stress. You can't help people identify, avoid, and eventually manage triggers while they unravel their real problems.

No. You just throw 'em on some mood stabilizer and call it a day. It's quackery pretending it has even the slightest clue what it's doing, and when you look at large scale literature reviews about real world efficacy of "standard" treatments, you see just how "evidence based" they really are. Though it's pretty obvious to begin with. Practicing field ought to just calm down and go back to debating whether in schizophrenia the sensory inputs are altered, or if the mind misprocesses correct signals, while those involved in real neuroscience do actual work in figuring it out.

File: platonic-world.jpg (17KB, 400x366px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 400x366px

>>8099398
I'm not arguing that Einstein's math equations are innacurate. I'm arguing that relativists claims that math is the reality.

>>8099859
it is tho

you just dont realize it because you never go that fast

>>8098845
>UN
>The pope
How the fuck does an argentinian old man benefit from a theory that states that the planet is heating up more than it should?
Kys

>>8099516
Not really, neuropsychology, KBT treatment is scientific and its treatment as well on depression, however it is not mature yet

>>8099859
I'm reading that book right now and you're misinterpreting that diagram. It's literally the exact opposite of what you're saying.

>>8097613

There's trolling along a river, tugging the line behind you and gently tempting fish into taking a nibble.

and then there's jumping off the boat and trying to grab a fish.

you're the later.

File: interstellar-3.png (2MB, 3334x1398px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3334x1398px

>>8099406
>We'll just ignore the fact that we observe them all the time
Where? In sci-fi movies?

>>8097524
>Has there ever been an issue that 99% of scientists agreed on


yes, absolutely, almost everything

all serious scientists think the same things about objectives stuff

since with the scientific method you can eventually only arrive at the right conclussion

the thing is there will always be scientist-pretenders and they are given advertisement by the big goverment

for example, you have 99.99999% of doctors thinking vaccination is safe

but you have one crazy asshole who goes on tv and its like hes the same as the rest

File: NWO.jpg (92KB, 500x462px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 500x462px

>>8099943
Seriously?
It's the new age religion and mandatory compliance or you are a denier. New age priests - climate scientists, new age End of Days, new age taxation. Forget the child trafficker from Argentina, forget the old Nazi Pope, they are puppet-heads and do what the Jesuit General tell them to do. Retire, push AGW, push mass immigration, whatever, it's all means to an end.

>>8100021
>I have never read anything about the history of black holes, but I think my opinion matters.

the "low-fat" craze

>>8100063
>history of black holes
Who write this, Stepehn King?

>>8100123
nice bait m8

Didn't people used to believe smoking wasn't harmful at the start of the century? Including doctors?

>>8100129

>http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.htm

>People who smoke cigarettes are 15 to 30 times more likely to get lung cancer or die from lung cancer than people who do not smoke.

>Only 15 to 30 %.

15 to 30 sounds like clear p hacking to me.

It promoted like it's it's 100% or at least 50 %.
But it's not even close.

>>8097686
He's correct.

>>8100158

low effort

>>8100186
Really?
Because last time I checked 30 was twice as much as 15, and when your range is that wide, you're bullshitting someone about your data.

>Hey, IR...My income is between 12,000 and 24,000 a year.
>That's too wide a range and you need to see my data?
>How about I pay for propaganda and fear mongering and make anyone that questions my people in a lab coat look ridiculous?
>That works!?
>Great!

>>8100194
IRS*

>>8100194
/sci/ is an anti-smoking board. You won't get any support here for the most part, which is unfortunate.

Truth is, smoking isn't a big deal nor is it any real harm unless you're already a health disaster. It's probably the biggest health scam in the U.S.

>>8100199
No, psychiatry is the biggest health scam in history. Smoking = Cancer is the second biggest, Alcoholism and Gateway Drug myths the third.

In fact, why are the "medical sciences" so full of phony-baloney pseudoscience nonsense?
And why does it persist?
I mean, the APA even calls Marijuana one of the most dangerous drugs there is.
Seriously.

The fuck, medical students?
The. Fuck.
>Clarification, in Nova Scotia Canada "the fuck" and "you're fucked" is correct common usage for displays of disgust.

>>8100206
>Smoking=Cancer

It's not just cancer though. Smoking doesn't really cause or lead to any real health risks. It was always something else as the culprit. For industry reasons, scientists simply blamed smoking. The fact that the nazis were the first ones to "discover" that smoking has "health risks" should tell you something.

>>8099442
>none of them last for enough generations in a stable way to participate in a meaningful way in speciation.
because unless it leads to speciation, it's not important, right?
I suggest you take a course in evo bio too.

and as much as Lamarck was mostly wrong, his ideas were more than the giraffe example he always bandied around.
>mother is malnourished -> epigenetic alterations passed on to child -> child is born with stingier metabolism
the above is a real-world example of a situation that follows Lamarck's model. it's not accurate in the overwhelming majority of cases, but he was a little tiny bit right.

File: Gravitational-Lensing-001.jpg (105KB, 595x298px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 595x298px

>>8100021
What, ya thought the picture I gave you was an artist's rendition? That's a close up of gravity lensing caused by J0100+2802.

The Perseus Black Hole:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/Central_regions_Perseus_galaxy_cluster.jpg/300px-Central_regions_Perseus_galaxy_cluster.jpg

NGC 1068:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/2b/1e/ac/2b1eac5e84b78fbadb0b7a59de8277f0.jpg

Centaurus A's central black hole:
http://www.cnet.com/pictures/the-beauty-of-black-holes-pictures/2/

Hubble's imaging of gravity lensing (pic related).

Everything Einstein predicted, reacting as one would mathematically expect.

Granted, you can't take a direct image of one, as there's no such thing as a naked singularity, but we've detected literally hundreds of thousands of accretion disks that could only be caused by black holes, including some in our own galaxy.

>>8100072
That would be a good one, but it was more of a trend started by the USDA that most scientists were already railing against.

It's sad, as it lead to the high sugar and toxic sugar substitute craze, that is actually a lot more damaging.

>>8100337
>What, ya thought the picture I gave you was an artist's rendition?
Don't bother responding to this level of denialism. The obvious response is lel NASA creates CG, Earth is flat.

File: stoplight_loosejaw[1].jpg (53KB, 640x297px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 640x297px

>>8099486
>Monsters existing in the Ocean
but they were right, pic related

and I hope that stoplight loosejaw bites all of the below-mentioned anons right on the dick:

>>8099502
I'm literally a high-functioning autist and I'm nowhere near as autistic as you. I mean, damn, son.

>>8100158
>15 to 30 sounds like clear p hacking to me.
confirmed for not even knowing what p hacking is.

>>8100206
>the APA even calls Marijuana one of the most dangerous drugs there is.
so wrong it hurts...
>Further research on the use of cannabis-derived substances as medicine should be encouraged and facilitated by the federal government. The adverse effects of marijuana, including, but not limited to, the likelihood of addiction, must be simultaneously studied.
https://www.psychiatry.org/File%20Library/About-APA/Organization-Documents-Policies/Policies/Position-2013-Marijuana-As-Medicine.pdf

>>8100219
>Smoking doesn't really cause or lead to any real health risks.
[citation needed] faggot

File: mathematical-universe.jpg (188KB, 731x409px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 731x409px

>>8099859
>I'm not arguing that Einstein's math equations are innacurate. I'm arguing that relativists claims that math is the reality.
That's something that started long, long before Einstein was ever born or relativity was ever conceived of.

There's good reason for that, for starters, that you can make mathematical models that accurately predict observations that you've yet to make, but more importantly, mathematical models are the smallest bits of information that any two individuals can agree upon and still convey to one another in an objective fashion. They are as fine tuned as communicable consciousness gets.

Now, of course, your math can be perfectly correct, and your conclusion still completely wrong, but no one has ever denied that - least of all Einstein, who was challenging perfectly correct mathematical models, with models of his own, and challenging his own on top of that, often disproving both.

Einstein's theories, at least, are mostly observationally verifiable. If you want to get into a theory of physics where it's pure mathematical fantasy in that, by definition, it's unobservable - you need to get into string theory. That's the reason, however, that most scientists laugh string theorists out of the room. A mathematical theory of everything that you can never observationally verify, is essentially meaningless.

>>8100219
Dude, you have never smoked. Maybe you vaped or some shit, but if you've ever actually smoked cigarettes, pipes, or cigars - you don't need no damned doctor to tell you that you are killing yourself. It's pretty damned self evident, and on or off is the difference between night and day.

>>8100355
How do you know this beyond your own experience? Just because something might feel bad for you doesn't make it actually bad. Working out feels pretty painful and exhausting if you actually want to get huge, doesn't make it bad for you. You're approaching this from a weird perspective.

>>8100350
[citation needed]

There are plenty of counter examples online demonstrating the dishonesty of anti-smoking and some of the alleged links to disease being weak. I really don't want to post them all just so people can ignore them and pull the shill gambit.

The CATO institute has some good information, so does Ray Johnstone.

>>8100369
>>>>>[citation needed]
>>>>[citation needed]
>>>No, [citation needed]
>>No fuck you, [citation needed]
>FUCK YOU [citation needed]
This is a really engaging debate, as it always is here on /sci/.

>>8097524
I think it's ironic that economist and political scientist will tell you that climate science is bs when their fields have massive standard deviations and think a .4 r-squared value is good enough for publication in a top tier journal in the field.

Don't listen to anything an economist or political 'scientist' says. They don't know shit about statistics.

>>8100369
>The CATO institute
Holy shit really? The CATO institute is garbage. Libertarian analysis? Applying an ideological frame work before you even begin is absolutely not scientific.

File: djarum_black_oc.jpg (116KB, 696x618px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 696x618px

>>8100369
>>8100365
Oh, I don't have any doubt that truth.org is full of lies, and that certain factions have every financial motivation to put an end to tobacco production in developing nations, for it has such a high turn around it risks them coming out of debt...

I don't even doubt that cancer is probably the least of the worries.

But I, and every smoker, former or otherwise, knows the shit is toxic as fuck. You're basically replicating the process that kills most people in fires on a smaller scale on a regular and more direct basis, and it causes all sorts of problems, and nearly every smoker will report as such. It's simple enough to measure the reduced lung capacity alone, and that has all sorts of implications up and down the health chain.

All that's ignoring how damned easy it is to kill someone with nicotine, but I suspect the nicotine is among the least of the worries - were it not for the fact that it kept you coming back.

>>8100389
It's truly impossible to design a study on smoking that can account for every variable. But like you said, I think it's pretty safe to assume at this point that smoking is bad for you.

File: Where-the-Hell-is-Matt.jpg (375KB, 768x432px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 768x432px

>>8100350
>so wrong it hurts...
The link you provided actually SUPPORTS what I said, ultra straightforward.

Read the links you post before you post them.

>https://www.psychiatry.org/File%20Library/About-APA/Organization-Documents-Policies/Policies/Position-2013-Marijuana-As-Medicine.pdf

>>Smoking doesn't really cause or lead to any real health risks.
>[citation needed] faggot
Shifting the burden of proof?

>>8100355
> you don't need no damned doctor to tell you that you are killing yourself.
Science, or it didn't/doesn't happen.
Burden of proof in on those making the claim.
The CDC says smoking can only increase your chances up to a maximum of 30%, and on average only 15%.
The CDC link has already been provided.

>>8100400
>It's truly impossible to design a study on smoking that can account for every variable.
No it's not. Tedious isn't impossible.
Is this seriously what millennials have come to?
If an effort must be made, then it's impossible?
Is that why your retarded generation just cycles around in ego and authoritarian fallacies?
>cuz effort is zzzzzzzzz
God, I hope your generation gets the medical science, social science and physical science it deserves.
The kind that is so error ridden it kills you.
>cuz effort is zzzzzzz
By the way, there is a term for that kind of study.
It's called meta-analysis.

>>8100413
What would you do then? Take a group of individuals and control every aspect of their life and where the live and grow up? Their are so many lurking variables. You would have to assume some are negligible.

>>8100413
>>It's truly impossible to design a study on smoking that can account for every variable.
>No it's not. Tedious isn't impossible.
Not him, but I'm laughing so hard at this stupid response. There are infinite variables. Literally infinite. Yes, most have negligible effect, but you can't definitively and objectively "prove" that without considering "all" of them.

Welcome to reality. Doing science is harder than criticizing it.

>>8100406
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3944281/
Cancer, least of your worries. (Also isn't this the same guy that's reading +30x as +30%?)

>>8100413
It actually is impossible, because in addition to the fact that we don't have variable, nor a way to track every variable, we have competing interest groups mucking up the findings.

The latter of which makes accurate scientific information on a great number of controversial subjects impossible.

>>8100414
No, you idiot. You combine the research of multiple authors and cross reference the research.
Secondly, you sort the information by listing the top 400 variables.
Anyway, we already know the underlying cause of cancer... of all cancers... it's genes.
When a substance effects genes it's called either a mutagen or genotoxic.
Yes, many items, including tobacco, are mutagenic. But so is coffee, soda, chocolate, tea, etc... and they're more mutagenic and genotoxic than tobacco... people just don't use them as much as tobacco.
People with predispositions to cancer should avoid these things; but people without them can usually do shit freely and laugh.

>You would have to assume some are negligible.
Assuming isn't how science is done.
The reason why science was invented was because assuming didn't work.
>facepalm

>>8100413
sorry how can you account for genetics in the experiment?

>>8100413
>>8100429
The worst part about people who don't actually understand science is how smug they are. If only the experts where as cocky and arrogant in pushing the empirical data onto the general public.

>>8100373
If anything that saying smoking is bad for you need a serious and credible citation, since they push so much government and WHO meme science.

>>8100382
https://www.sott.net/article/229156-Lies-Damned-Lies-400000-Smoking-related-Deaths-Cooking-the-Data-in-the-Fascists-Anti-Smoking-Crusade

Give me a solid reason as to why they're bad instead of just "waaaah libertarianism"

>>8100389
Is that pic implying USA cigs are bad while others are good? It certainly makes sense. Two year olds smoke in Indonesia and they seem fine.

>But I, and every smoker, former or otherwise, knows the shit is toxic as fuck.

Alright, but even then most smokers don't get sick until they're old, and when you're old it's far easier to fall ill anyway.

Besides, anti-smoking has always relied on bad science to back up any and all of their claims.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/SG8.htm
http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/TSSOASb.html
http://sci.med.diseases.cancer.narkive.com/6qNYNZIZ/the-dishonesty-of-antismoking
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-1/e1-4.htm

>>8100413
Meta-analyses are shit though.

Most people don't realize that cancers are genetic or caused by things in he air like radon. So if a smoker coincidentally gets lung cancer it's TOTALLY NOT GENETICS OR OTHER TOXIC SHIT IN HE AIR, it's smoking. Yep. Makes perfect sense, except smokers outside of the U.S. don't even remotely get the same cancer link that smoking is attributed to.

Also, doctors also can check smoking off as a cause of death, even if the smoking didn't cause it or if the person stopped smoking a long time ago.

>>8100413
>tedious not impossible

apparently its not impossible to account for literally infinite variables

>>8100463
>Give me a solid reason as to why they're bad instead of just "waaaah libertarianism"
That is a solid reason. Science isn't supposed to confirm your ideology. CATO and other economist start with ideological framework, then collect data that supports their point and present it as fact. Whereas physical and life sciences collect data and draw conclusions from there. Regardless of the topic at hand, CATO is an awful source for anyone who claims they are a scientist.

>>8100463
>Alright, but even then most smokers don't get sick until they're old
Ya get sick as soon as you start due to reduced lung capacity alone, which you recover from rapidly if you quit, but then it returns when you start again. Plenty of citations in that very article pointing to that fact, let alone the ancetodatal of every smoker ever.

Go out and smoke a pack, if you don't believe me. And good luck getting up in the morning if it's your first pack.

>>8100480
There aren't *literally* infinite variables, even if you trace every variable back to the beginning of fucking time. There's just a standard Texas-sized shitload, and many of the more critical ones we've no practical way to track.

Though, one very finite variable that does make such analysis impossible, is competing interests. For every study one side comes up with, the other side will come up with another counter study, and so on, and so forth, until no one can discern the truth beyond gut feeling.

>>8100508
here's the thing though, there is so many it might as well be infinite

>>8100515
Pick 400. Hope for the best.

Still be rendered moot by the inevitable counter-study, regardless of how many you track.

>>8100496
>start with ideological framework, then collect data that supports their point and present it as fact.

You could easily say that about studies that are against smoking as well. Besides, the link wasn't a study, it pointed out bullshit in other studies. Please try and at least read links instead of dismissing them with your nose up.

>>8100500
Well, sick is a rather subjective term. I'm talking COPD/Emphysema/other diseases that are unfairly and erroneously associated with smoking due to people desperately looking for a demon in their cigarettes.

In fact it has been suggested that smoking isn't the cause of COPD/emphysema but merely another target for people trying to explain the disease.

There have also been studies showing smokers are healthier than nonsmokers.

>>8098536

Every. Single. One. government in the world has a wet dream of blanket tax on everything, maintained forever, increased anytime for not being enough. What's better then weather ? People are complaining about weather being worse then back then. Like, since forever. Easy-peasy.

>>8100470
>So if a smoker coincidentally gets lung cancer it's TOTALLY NOT GENETICS OR OTHER TOXIC SHIT IN HE AIR, it's smoking.
Do you actually know what an experiment is at all? We don't need to individually match each and every case of cancer to a specific cause to make claims about statistical likelihood.

>>8100538
Except we know there's a whole host of bad things that happen to you as a result of reduced lung capacity not related to smoking, and we know that smoking, even in the short term, instantly reduces lung capacity.

Yeah the studies about emphysema or cancer or what not maybe fuzzy as fuck, but there's no doubt it's bad for you. The folks that are saying smokers are healthier than non-smokers are either smoking crack or hundred dollar bills.

>>8100547
You could say the exact same things about vaccines or GMOsbut those are harmless.

So many people smoked back in the day that to statistically correlate a disease with smoking would be absolutely retarded.

File: image.jpg (66KB, 490x384px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 490x384px

>>8100553
>The folks that are saying smokers are healthier than non-smokers are either smoking crack or hundred dollar bills.

>At the time of the first report the Surgeon General had exercised his right to commission the Bureau of the Census to survey the population and compare the health of smokers, nonsmokers and exsmokers.The results were published in 1967 as`"Cigarette Smoking and Health Characteristics" with "William H. Stewart Surgeon General" on the title-page. The results were unexpected and, it seems, unwelcome: the healthiest men and women were not the nonsmokers but those who smoked 1 - 11 cigarettes per day.

>>8100558
>You could say the exact same things about vaccines or GMOs but those are harmless.
What? No you can't.
Do you have a source that claims that people who take vaccines are statistically more likely to get cancer/sick?

>>8100561
>1967
Hey, the same years doctors were doing TV ads for cigarette companies.

So hundred dollar bills then.

Well, maybe $20's - I gotta adjust for inflation.

>>8100565
Not him, but seriously, don't ya think 10 minutes on Google would get you there?

Not that you'd find *good* sources, but this is one of those things that there's so much misinformation on that the truth kinda gets lost.

Granted, the worst things about GMO's have less to do with health effects, but rather economics. We're going to need GMO's, one way or the other, but the ways the laws surrounding them are setup now, they are doing more harm than good.

>>8100530
>You could easily say that about studies that are against smoking

You haven't proven they're biased though. You might as well be assuming they're biased against smoking just because they show evidence that smoking is unsafe.

>>8100571
>Not that you'd find *good* sources, but this is one of those things that there's so much misinformation on that the truth kinda gets lost.
It's really, really, not.
There's a very small number of low-quality, widely discredited studies, on one side, and a vast consensus on the other.

>>8100579
So, you're just baiting him to find a bad source you can rip apart?

>>8100561
You do realize its common knowledge doctors and scientists were paid shills for tobacco back then. next you'll be citing old studies about how football has no correlation with concussions.

>>8100576
No, I can say that because the studies are headline grabbing shit that are laughable by the standards of scientific study that also can have pharmaceutical conflicts of interests that no one points out, despite people always screaming about a conflict of interest when someone takes money from a tobacco company to find a study.

>>8100568
Are you serious? It was one of the studies the surgeon general conveniently ignored. This is a case where the surgeon general, WHO, EPA etc all use studies and have information that hilariously goes directly against their purpose.

>>8100565
>get cancer/sick?

Ever hear of Andrew Wakefield? Anti-tobacco research is like that but on a significantly larger scale.

>>8100579
You mean for smoking? That's true but quantity is inferior to actual quality. Many smoking studies- particularly those showing health risks or showing that heart attack rates drop by a large percentage after smoking bans- are crap.

>>8100587
Because the Surgeon General was more expensive to bribe, it was cheaper to contaminate the studies that come across the his desk. Luckily, he either had enough integrity to know better, or was influenced by the side that was alarmed at how much the monroe doctrine nations were starting to take off.

File: download.jpg (8KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 275x183px

This is all fucking bullshit.
The jews and jesus aren't coming back to save you from your fishes.
I don't care what the fuck bigfoot clinton says about trump obama and I could GIVE A DAMN about world wide room heating or WHATEVER you call it.

Look, did you eat pizza as a teen?
Yes.
Did you feel like a mutant as a teen?
Again, yes.
Did you live in the sewers in nyc and fight crime on the side in the 1980s?
What I'm trying to get at is that psychiatry killed the dinosaurs so all your arguments are invalid and you just got blown the fuck out.

/fin

>>8100582
>paid shill

Are you going to dismiss anyone sticking up for tobacco on the basis hat they're a paid shill? The guy I green texted is also someone who defends smoking in some of the links here: >>8100463

>>8100595
Ummmm...

>>8100592
>Many smoking studies- particularly those showing health risks or showing that heart attack rates drop by a large percentage after smoking bans- are crap.
I look forward to watching you establish that.

File: animals-fish-carp-carping-constructive_criticism-behaviour-bven610_low.jpg (72KB, 400x495px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 400x495px

>>8100598
BANDS ARE CARP
BANDS ARE CARP
FISHY FISHY FISHY

>>8100595
ok

File: download (1).jpg (16KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 259x194px

>>8100595
>Look, did you eat pizza as a teen?
>Yes.
>Did you feel like a mutant as a teen?
>Again, yes.
>Did you live in the sewers in nyc and fight crime on the side in the 1980s?

>>8100583
Maybe it's because it's in the best interests of the pharmaceutical companies to have accurate studies of their drugs?

Can you really say the same thing about tobacco companies? They only have tobacco as their only source of profit, so it's not really surprising that they would be that desperate. Pharmaceutical companies sell multiple different types of drugs so they don't have the same problems.

>>8097553
Except that there was never empirical evidence that the earth was at the center of the universe (though by definition it is the center of the observable universe). There are mountains of it that imply human caused climate change.

With the earth is at the center of the universe thing, the powerful organizations (really just the church) fought tooth and nail against anyone who suggested otherwise. Climate change is the opposite. Powerful organizations (energy companies, entire countries, etc.) don't want climate change to be true and fight it, yet the evidence is still there.

>>8097686
Yeah, except he's actually right. If he was saying the church insisted the earth is flat (like some people tend to assume), then he would be wrong. However, the church did fight this progress and persecuted those that didn't toe the line like Copernicus, Galileo, etc. It's the same as how the church is fighting old earth evolution, now. Some accept it because the evidence is obvious, but many claim that the earth is ~6k years old.

>>8097785
>weaken and degrade legitimacy of historical absolutes, universal truths, and commonly held moral codes
>"Anything is up for grabs, society is whatever you want it to be. Let's redefine what it means to be a functional person!"
>end up earnestly believing that the intersection of flavor-of-the-month social mob consensus and one's biology is the only thing that differentiates a 5 alarm loonie from a contributing member of society
>loonies end up being the most vocal in deciding what it means to be a functional contributor to society

This is why the West is loosing. It is also why psychology is shit.

>>8100612
No one cares about your penis in your butt.
We're talking SCIENCE here, not homosexuality.

>>8097785
Psychologist is fucking yourself with a nailgun and calling it art and medicine.
Also, Freud secretly married his daughter under false name in Sweden, therefore blah.

File: the_untested_red_pill.png (1MB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1536px

>>8100605

>>8100621
I'm talking science, I don't know that you are (unless you responded to the wrong person).

>>8100628
Thread's just being trolled at this point. Some drunk anti /sci/ raid again, I suppose.

>>8100626
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2887152
just googled one

>>8100636
A conspiracy theorist, eh?
You must be Canadian.
French Canadian.
Tell me, did you steal that bread from your whore mother or did she give it to you after fought the bear in the Alps?
GET OUT OF AMERICA YOU CANADIAN BASTARD.

>>8100406
>The link you provided actually SUPPORTS what I said, ultra straightforward.
You say that, but you're pretty obviously wrong. You said that the APA calls cannabis "one of the most dangerous drugs there is". Meanwhile the APA ACTUALLY says that it should be studied to assess its potential medicinal value. That alone means that the APA favors downgrading it; Schedule I substances (of which marijuana is one) are considered to have no legitimate medical use whatsoever.

Also:
>http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1097-0142(20010915)92:6%3C1525::AID-CNCR1478%3E3.0.CO;2-H/full
>http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19970801)80:3%3C382::AID-CNCR5%3E3.0.CO;2-U/full

>>8100463
>anti-smoking has always relied on bad science to back up any and all of their claims.
>posts a bunch of tinfoil blog posts in support of his claims
oh dear...

>>8100637
BTFO
TFO
FO
O

>>8100598
The Helena study
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/helena.html

the Scotland study
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/5988

>>8100705
None of those articles are tinfoil. I'm glad that you can't refute any of this so you just resort to buzzwords to get your way. That's a shame. The author of some of those links is a genuine science/epidiomological researcher with good things to say regarding faulty science.

>>8100755
They are too blinded to see anything other than "SMOKING BAD" so there's not much you can do to convince them at this point. Nobody considers the protection given by the additional mucus lining.

>>8100778
>>8100755

Usually when you flood lungs with mucus, we call it pneumoniae, and I've got news about how this "protects your lungs from bacteria" - it's quite the opposite.

...and ya both are far too determined to be edgy.

>>8100716
The AHA has reviewed the literature and they found this.

>Smoking is a major risk factor for CVD and stroke. The AHA has identified never having tried smoking or never having smoked a whole cigarette (for children) and never having smoked or having quit >12 months ago (for adults) as 1 of the 7 components of ideal cardiovascular health.

https://circ.ahajournals.org/content/early/2015/12/16/CIR.0000000000000350

Though, it seems they only state heart attacks as a possible risk factor.

Leaded gasoline was shilled as safe for a long time by scientists

>>8100908
What has 1930's standards got to do with 2010's standards?

>>8100941
You really think that 2010s standards are materially superior?

>>8100908
Probably not by 99% of scientists through.

>>8097524
There are tonnes of examples of the consensus being overturned by the theories of a lone genius, but none where the consensus was a political or ideological conspiracy. Galileo overturned a model of the universe with obvious religious implications, however, It's very arguable that he was overturning a scientific consensus at all. I don't really consider the opposing thinkers as scientists as opposed to theologians. Darwin caused a similar paradigm shift, as did Einstein. But in all cases the consensus was honestly mistaken, not an outright conspiracy. More recently, a consensus was successfully challenged in the field of socialisation research by an amateur outside the field, Judith Rich Harris. And therein lies the whole ridiculousness of the global-warming-as-scam accusations. If it's true, where is the deniers Judith Harris? Where is their lonely genius, who has exhaustively analysed a multitude of peer reviewed papers, published peer reviewed papers of their own, and published books in which they exhaustively debunk their opponents arguments?

He doesn't exist. There is no scientifically credible climate change denier. Instead, they continually claim that climate change research is a closed shop, that they are systematically locked out of publication in peer review journals by editors that are overly hostile to their case. But if that were true, how did Einstein, Judith Rich Harris, Darwin or any of the other paradigm shifters ever get published? What is special about climate change research that makes it especially vitriolic to outside viewpoints, unprecedented in the history of science.

Could it possibly be that the climate change sceptics case is so utterly asinine and scientifically incoherent that they refuse to engage scientists where they are strongest, in scientific journals, but instead chose to press their case where they are weaker, in the lay media?

>>8097524
Milk and dairies?

when the fuck did pro smoking become a meme and why

my theory is that it's the same type of people as flat earthers, who don't actually believe what they say but argue an impossible point on the Internet to improve debating skills

>>8101229
literally sophists?

>>8100898
I said that its smoking bans being supported and rewarded for the drop in heart attack rates. This is usually an argument supporting secondhand smoke affecting others as well. The links I provided were trying to show the supposed benefit smoking bans had on non smokers.

>>8100830
This shows that smoking doesn't actually cause Emphysema/COPD - so the idea of it being that damaging to the lungs is debatable.

http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/38868-smoking-is-good-for-you/page-11#entry389183

>>8101229
>my theory is that it's the same type of people as flat earthers, who don't actually believe what they say but argue an impossible point on the Internet to improve debating skills

That's a nice little theory you have.

Most people are just tired of people drawing muh feely feels related bullshit conclusions regarding smoking when tons of people live to be old and smoke. This only seems like a western exclusive mentality and isn't shared anywhere else.

Thing is, people jump to the conclusion that smoking causes all of these cancers and diseases- despite the disease link being weak and the cancer likely being a result of family history and not from smoking.

File: Smokeme.jpg (85KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 850x400px

>>8101795
Consensus science under global fascism has ruined the world.

>>8101795
buddy, i'll 100% believe you if you can prove that the % of people who smoke that die of lung cancer, is the same % of people who don't smoke and die of lung cancer and proving it is not cancerous. Until then its just awful bait

>>8101830
Well, first off, it's erroneous to assume that smoking causes lung cancer just because a greater percentage of lung cancer patients happen to be smokers.

But I'll try and find something.

>>8101829
>eighty three years old

Watch people try and dismiss him as an outlier or something.

>>8101830
Alight, this isn't directly what you wanted, but is an interesting bit of information

>Lung cancer mainly occurs in older people. About 2 out of 3 people diagnosed with lung cancer are 65 or older; fewer than 2% of all cases are found in people younger than 45. The average age at the time of diagnosis is about 70.
http://m.cancer.org/cancer/lungcancer-non-smallcell/detailedguide/non-small-cell-lung-cancer-key-statistics

>Surprisingly, fewer than 10 percent of lifelong smokers will get lung cancer. Fewer yet will contract the long list of other cancers, such as throat or mouth cancers. In the game of risk, you're more likely to have a condom break than to get cancer from smoking.
http://www.livescience.com/3093-smoking-myths-examined.html

Most lung cancer patients are old, and only a small amount of smokes get lung cancer so young smokers realistically wouldn't have much to worry about.

Still looking for a comparison though, will bump the thread if I find one.

>>8101960
Also what I find funny is that fact that I've heard of much more cases of nonsmokers getting lung cancer earlier than smokers usually do.

>>8101896
It's erroneous to assume that we think cigarettes cause cancer "just because" it's heavily correlated with cancer

>>8102000
It's really not though. The number of smokers who get cancer is a much smaller percentage compared to total smokers.

>>8097524
The 1972 removal of homosexuality from the APA's list of mental disorders was politically motivated, there has never been a study supporting the decision to remove it.

>>8101029
Locked out of publication?
Despite your tiresome meme, there are many, many peer reviewed publications that support skepticism.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
http://www.c3headlines.com/peer-reviewed-research-studies-climate-change-related-other.html
http://chrono.qub.ac.uk/blaauw/cds.html

>>8102623
Seltz also claimed that the government has been lying about secondhand smoke, asbestos, and pesticide not being harmful.

Considering his reputation I'd also believe him on those issues as well.

>>8102623
Hundreds more papers supporting skepticism.

http://notrickszone.com/248-skeptical-papers-from-2014/
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/Madhav%20bibliography%20LONG%20VERSION%20Feb%206-07.pdf

>>8102672
Second hand smoke wasn't definitely lied about/exaggerated in the sense that they set the statistical criterion for "proving" that second hand smoke is bad, to 10% (no one uses a criterion weaker than 5%). Asbestos and pesticides I don't know much about.

>>8097524
This whole thread is making me puke, /sci/ is just a forum full of paranoic people believing they understand science... from time to time there's some respectful thread about real science, but this is just... JUST UGH
plz stahp
gmo's are safe and saving people, vaccines are safe and saving people, climate change is real and its our fault, psychoanalysis is a nice piece of history (BUT THATS IT, not scientific), hitting/verbally abusing your child will fuck them up when they grow up, psychology isn't a pseudoscience, i've no idea what else to mention. Oh yeah, if you think otherwise you either dont understand science or just havent got in contact with the relevant studies, or maybe something else like you have an incredible amount of hidden meta-analyses that prove the contrary, but i really doubt the latter so... yeah... plz stahp /sci/ you need to be more critical about what you believe science is...

>>8102692
I thought it was more of it being no worse than 2 regarding relative risk ratios, and the risk of SHS never reached 2.

Of course it reached 1.9 or something so tobacco haters came out and said that the RRR was actually 1 or something stupid like that. They actually had the gall to suggest that 1 was the epidemiological consensus and anyone saying 2 was falling for tobacco industry science.

>>8102705
Its been a while since I read up on it. I just remember reading somewhere that they were so desperate to get a statistically significant result that that changed things from p<0.05 to p<0.10 .

>>8102697
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman

>>8102716
Well this is the first thing that came up on google.

>The choice of significance level at which you reject H0 is arbitrary. Conventionally the 5% (less than 1 in 20 chance of being wrong), 1% and 0.1% (P < 0.05, 0.01 and 0.001) levels have been used. These numbers can give a false sense of security.

>In the ideal world, we would be able to define a "perfectly" random sample, the most appropriate test and one definitive conclusion. We simply cannot. What we can do is try to optimise all stages of our research to minimise sources of uncertainty. When presenting P values some groups find it helpful to use the asterisk rating system as well as quoting the P value:
>P < 0.05 *
>P < 0.01 **
>P < 0.001

>Most authors refer to statistically significant as P < 0.05 and statistically highly significant as P < 0.001 (less than one in a thousand chance of being wrong).
http://www.statsdirect.com/help/default.htm#basics/p_values.htm

File: 0 out of 10.jpg (52KB, 600x509px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 600x509px

>>8100720
>None of those articles are tinfoil.
In fairness, none of them are articles. Let's go over them one by one:
-tinfoil blog post alleging that a certain paper was taken down by the anti-smoking zealots. the paper, linked below, contains strong but not conclusive preliminary evidence that smoking fucks you up.
>http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray//sr10_034acc.pdf
-tinfoil blog post alleging that the research shows no correlation between smoking and mortality, with a few linked papers at the bottom that demonstrate the exact opposite
-tinfoil blog post with claims literally copied and pasted from the above two sources
-tinfoil blog post in the hilariously named Journal of Theoretics making similar claims

what do they all have in common? they claim that smoking isn't bad for you, that it's all a lie by Big Pharma, and then they link papers that prove that claim wrong. that's kinda pathetic desu senpai

File: Laughing crocogators.png (448KB, 455x395px) Image search: [Google]

448KB, 455x395px

>>8102623
>>8102683
>what if we name-drop a bunch of papers and tell everyone that they support denialism?

here's the real problem with your paper list: it's shit
most of them are papers of no particular merit rattled off over and over again by a handful of determined deniers. just look how often Sherwood B. Idso shows up on your list. that's not a consensus of the evidence; that's one guy trying to convince people that his pet opinion is correct.

not to mention, a lot of them are just plain wrong. as an example: Upper ocean temperature variability in the northeast Pacific Ocean: Is it an indicator of global warming? (Royer 1989)
>Below normal water and air temperatures should occur over the next 5–15 years.
and as a matter of fact, the '90s saw continued warming. nice failed prediction.

some of them don't even address global warming or climate change as a whole. for example, "Observed changes in the diurnal temperature and dewpoint cycles across the United States" (Knappenberger et al. 1996) doesn't say anything about whether or not the planet is warming. no sir, it just looks at changes in daily temperature cycles, specifically what time of day is the hottest. someone unfamiliar with atmospheric science must have just gone through, seen the words "very modest (and nonobvious) responses to greenhouse changes" and assumed it was proof that warming isn't happening. nice reading comprehension, friendo.

a lot of them aren't even peer-reviewed research. "Human Contribution to Climate Change Remains Questionable" (Singer 1999) is literally just the equivalent of a letter to the editor. no actual science, just an opinion piece.

and then there are some that EXPLICITLY SUPPORT the theory of global warming. take "Why Hasn't Earth Warmed as Much as Expected?" (Schwartz et al. 2010), which not only supports the prevailing theory but indicates that we can expect significantly more warming than we've seen thus far.

so yeah, intothetrashitgoes.bmp

>>8102797
>None of them are articles.

The first link actually is an article that directly examines how major organization cook up bullshit against smoking related mortality and disease.

The first post was actually a CATO institute article pointing out that the WHOs own information meant that the risk level was not high enough for secondhand smoke to be dangerous. Additionally the EPA's assertions regarding tobacco was thrown out of court by a federal judge. They cherry picked data and went out of there way to suppress the fact that the majority of the studies showed no risk at all. They also tried to hide the fact that none of the risks of disease from smoking or SHS were less than 2, which is small to the point of irrelevance. Also:
>That same illusion pervades the statistics released by the U.S. Surgeon General, who in his 1989 report estimated that 335,600 deaths were caused by smoking. When Sterling, Rosenbaum, and Weinkam recalculated the Surgeon General's numbers, replacing the distorted CPS sample with a more representative baseline from large surveys conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics, they found that the number of smoking-related deaths declined to 203,200. Thus, the Surgeon General's report overstated the number of deaths by more than 65 percent simply by choosing the wrong standard of comparison.

>http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray//sr10_034acc.pdf

The point of that link was to show that the surgeon general buried and suppressed an article showing that smokers were healthier than nonsmokers.

>wah wah tinfoil blog post

Not going to dignify that with a response.

>what do they all have in common? they claim that smoking isn't bad for you, that it's all a lie by Big Pharma, and then they link papers that prove that claim wrong. that's kinda
pathetic desu senpai

In those links there was no big pharma claim, quit projecting. And stop fucking using buzzwords like tinfoil to discredit things you're too arrogant to comprehend.

>>8102882
>the surgeon general buried and suppressed an article showing that smokers were healthier than nonsmokers
literally a lie
read the paper alleged to have been "buried": http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray//sr10_034acc.pdf
you'll see that it shows higher rates of diseases (acute and chronic) among smokers than among non-smokers. it's pretty conclusively NOT what you say it is.

what does it say about you that even the sources you pick to back up your claims EXPLICITLY REFUTE what you're saying? this is seriously cringe-worthy

as for the rest, what you linked to is literally some blog post somewhere. the claims are not supported by the references cited, the posts are not published in any sort of reputable sources. it's literally "someone said something on the internet".

>>8102953
>as for the rest, what you linked to is literally some blog post somewhere

The CATO article? https://www.sott.net/article/229156-Lies-Damned-Lies-400000-Smoking-related-Deaths-Cooking-the-Data-in-the-Fascists-Anti-Smoking-Crusade

It's not just "some blog post somewhere", it points out the obvious discrepancy between the actual information and the claims made by the WHO, EPA, and surgeon general.

>>8102697
This.

>>8102045
>The number of smokers who get cancer is a much smaller percentage compared to total smokers.
You clearly don't understand what statistical correlation means if you think this is a relevant response. If smoking increased the chances of developing lung cancer 50 fold, there would still be more smokers without lung cancer than with. Why are you pretending to know anything about the issue when you can't even come up with a coherent argument?

File: Butthurt.jpg (150KB, 1074x925px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1074x925px

>>8102974
one, it's amusing that you keep banging on about how it was written by a guy from the CATO Institute as if that's a good thing. it's pretty well established that the CATO Institute is a mouthpiece for corporate interests. like, say, the tobacco industry.
two, it IS a blog post somewhere. it doesn't cite its sources for numbers or claims except nebulously attributing them to the EPA or the WHO. note also that the tables it displays are CROPPED SCREENSHOTS that exclude the legends and other context for the numbers within. it's a blog post by a guy who thinks he's hot shit.
three, nothing about how the "buried" paper actually directly refutes your claims? yeah, that's what I thought, fag.

>>8102992
There are currently more nonsmokers with lung cancer, as opposed to smokers, and on average they get lung cancer at an earlier age than smokers do.

>>8103192
>>What you said is silly and shows poor understanding of statistics.
>Allow me to repeat it verbatim. Are you now convinced?

>>8103147
>"well established"
>provides no citation
Religious/Political thinking detected.

Libertarians are just for freedom, plain and simple.
This "they're evil overlords looking to exploit the innocent by promoting... freedom!" crap has zero basis and is purely political nonsense in nature.

Libertarians are more for science than any other party.
>Libs
You means the fad and nonsense party?

You know it just struck me after wasting 5 min of my life perusing this thread, that coincidentally all of the the topics mentioned in the thread, that supposedly 99% of scientists agreed on but were wrong about, are all basically /pol/'s favorite talking points.

It's almost as though this thread only exists as a framework to hang /pol/'s ideaology and groupthink on.
anyways, carry on with the discussion, such as it is.

>>8103196
Let him have his fun. He gets to act like he debunked a solid argument because he attacked the source and not the argument. /sci/'s posters have apparently never heard of a logical fallacy.

And of course they take money from the tobacco companies. They do it to fund research, that's it. For him to assume they have some desire to promote smoking is ridiculous. They're clearly objective.

>>8097524
99% of scientists agree is just another way of saying "this topic is heavily politicised and if you're a scientist in this field disagreeing with it is career suicide." 99% of scientists agree....or else.

Anyone who works in these fields will know what I'm talking about.

>>8102866
You're the denier. That and your faith in your death cult. For example, there are plenty of papers demonstrating low climate sensitivity.

The short-term influence of various concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide on the temperature profile in the boundary layer
(Pure and Applied Geophysics, Volume 113, Issue 1, pp. 331-353, 1975)
- Wilford G. Zdunkowski, Jan Paegle, Falko K. Fye

Climate Sensitivity: +0.5 °C

Questions Concerning the Possible Influence of Anthropogenic CO2 on Atmospheric Temperature
(Journal of Applied Meteorology, Volume 18, Issue 6, pp. 822-825, June 1979)
- Reginald E. Newell, Thomas G. Dopplick

* Reply to Robert G. Watts' "Discussion of 'Questions Concerning the Possible Influence of Anthropogenic CO2 on Atmospheric Temperature'"
(Journal of Applied Meteorology, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp. 114–117, January 1981)
- Reginald E. Newell, Thomas G. Dopplick

Climate Sensitivity: +0.3 °C

CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic's view of potential climate change
(Climate Research, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 69–82, April 1998)
- Sherwood B. Idso

Climate Sensitivity: +0.4 °C

Revised 21st century temperature projections
(Climate Research, Volume 23, Number 1, pp. 1–9, December 2002)
- Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, Oliver W. Frauenfeld, Robert E. Davis

Climate Sensitivity: +1.9 °C

Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth's climate system
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 112, Issue D24, November 2007)
- Stephen E. Schwartz

* Reply to comments by G. Foster et al., R. Knutti et al., and N. Scafetta on "Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth's climate system"
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 113, Issue D15, August 2008)
- Stephen E. Schwartz

Climate Sensitivity: +1.9 °C

>>8103500
>>8102866
You're the science denier. That and your faith in your death cult.

Aerosol radiative forcing and climate sensitivity deduced from the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 35, Issue 4, February 2008)
- Petr Chylek, Ulrike Lohmann

* Reply to comment by Andrey Ganopolski and Thomas Schneider von Deimling on “Aerosol radiative forcing and climate sensitivity deduced from the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition”
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 35, Issue 23, December 2008)
- Petr Chylek, Ulrike Lohmann

Climate Sensitivity: +1.3-2.3 °C

Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 1-2, pp. 177-189, January 2009)
- David H. Douglass, John R. Christy

Climate Sensitivity: +1.1 °C

On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
(Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 47, Number 4, pp. 377-390, August 2011)
- Richard S. Lindzen, Yong-Sang Choi

Climate Sensitivity: +0.7 °C

Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum
(Science, Volume 334, Number 6061, pp. 1385-1388, November 2011)
- Andreas Schmittner et al.

Climate Sensitivity: +1.7-2.6 °C

Probabilistic Estimates of Transient Climate Sensitivity Subject to Uncertainty in Forcing and Natural Variability
(Journal of Climate, Volume 24, Issue 21, pp. 5521-5537, November 2011)
- Lauren E. Padilla, Geoffrey K. Vallis, Clarence W. Rowley

Climate Sensitivity: +1.6 °C

Improved constraints on 21st-century warming derived using 160 years of temperature observations
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 39, Number 1, January 2012)
- N. P. Gillett et al.

>>8103503
>>8102866
Again, You're the science denier. That and your faith in your death cult.


Bayesian estimation of climate sensitivity based on a simple climate model fitted to observations of hemispheric temperatures and global ocean heat content
(Environmetrics, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp. 253–271, May 2012)
- Magne Aldrin et. al.

Climate Sensitivity: +1.9 °C

Ring, Michael J., et al. "Causes of the global warming observed since the 19th century." Atmospheric and Climate Sciences 2.04 (2012): 401.

Climate Sensitivity: +1.8 °C


Observational estimate of climate sensitivity from changes in the rate of ocean heat uptake and comparison to CMIP5 models
(Climate Dynamics, April 2013)
- Troy Masters

Climate Sensitivity: +1.98 °C

A fractal climate response function can simulate global average temperature trends of the modern era and the past millennium
(Climate Dynamics, Volume 40, Issue 11-12,pp. 2651-2670, June 2013)
- J. H. van Hateren

Climate Sensitivity: +1.7-2.3 °C

An objective Bayesian, improved approach for applying optimal fingerprint techniques to estimate climate sensitivity
(Journal of Climate, Volume 26, Issue 19, pp. 7414-7429, October 2013)
- Nicholas Lewis

Climate Sensitivity: +1.6 °C

The Potency of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) as a Greenhouse Gas
(Development in Earth Science, Volume 2, pp. 20-30, 2014)
- Antero Ollila

Climate Sensitivity: +0.6 °C

The role of ENSO in global ocean temperature changes during 1955–2011 simulated with a 1D climate model
(Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 50, Issue 2, pp. 229-237, February 2014)
- Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell

Climate Sensitivity: +1.3 °C

Otto, Alexander, et al. "Energy budget constraints on climate response." Nature Geoscience 6.6 (2013): 415-416.

Climate Sensitivity: +1.9 °

A minimal model for estimating climate sensitivity
(Ecological Modelling, Volume 276, pp. 80-84, March 2014)
- Craig Loehle

Climate Sensitivity: +1.99 °

File: Phase Relation of CO2 and Temperature.jpg (60KB, 402x204px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 402x204px

>>8103505
You're the science denier. That and your faith in your death cult.
I thought temperature drove CO2?

Peer reviewed papers that establish that CO2 goes up AFTER temperatures. They cannot provide a single counter-example. The best they can do is "muh if we desperately torture the data, maybe they go up at about the same time."

Coherence established between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature
(Nature, Volume 343, Number 6260, pp. 709-714, February 1990)
- Cynthia Kuo et al.

"Temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide are significantly correlated over the past thirty years. Changes in carbon dioxide content lag those in temperature by five months."

Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations
(Science, Volume 283, Number 5408, pp. 1712-1714, March 1999)
- Hubertus Fischer et al.

"High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations."

Humlum, Ole, Kjell Stordahl, and Jan-Erik Solheim. "The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature." Global and Planetary Change 100 (2013): 51-69.

All bullshit. All copied whole from some denier website. Ever hear of a gish gallop?

None of these studies point to what you claim they point to. I'm not wasting my time chasing down your links. Wouldn't matter to you if I pointed out the flaws in every one of your links and arguments anyway. Your mind has been made up.

>>8102623
Those papers are included based on the criteria of an autist with no expertise.

You're better off with the IPCC. They have reviewed over 30,000 papers. Plus, they have volunteer scientists who actually have expertise in the subject. It's not just one person's criteria.

>>8102683
>skepticism.
Based on that vague criteria, I could just say skeptic position is that the earth isn't going to turn into Venus in 10 years.

You could basically include every research paper on climatology ever made.

See >>8103857

The biggest problem with the whole smoking thing is a lot of studies are from the U.S. or done in the western world. A lot of their scientific scare shut is so fake it's ridiculous.

Go see what happens to smokers in Greece or Italy or Japan, where smoking isn't seen as a big health problem.

>>8103147
You can go look up those studies themselves and see that those numbers are attributed.

>>8103503
>>8103505
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity

>The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report stated: Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence).

>These are Bayesian probabilities, which are based on an expert assessment of the available evidence.

Looks like most of these studies support the IPCC's assessment.

>>8103507
Old, outdated, and paywalled studies. I'll just pick the most recent one.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113000908

>Humlum et al.'s conclusion of natural CO2 rise since 1980 not supported by the data
>Their use of differentiated time series removes long term contributions.
>This conclusion violates conservation of mass.
>Further analysis shows that the natural contribution is indistinguishable from zero.
>The calculated human contribution is sufficient to explain the entire rise.

>>8103507
Some more rebuttals to the most recent paper you posted.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113001562

>Carbon isotopic trends of CO2 and atmospheric O2 concentration records are summarized.
>These evidences falsify the refutation of anthropogenic CO2 increase.
>Independent evidence is always recommended to test purely statistical results.
>these parameters provide solid evidence that fossil fuel combustion is the major source of atmCO2 increase throughout the Industrial Era.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113000891

>The paper by Humlum et al. (2013) suggests that much of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration since 1980 results from changes in ocean temperatures, rather than from the burning of fossil fuels. We show that these conclusions stem from methodological errors and from not recognizing the impact of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation on inter-annual variations in atmospheric CO2.

File: Solo.jpg (72KB, 323x323px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 323x323px

>>8103196
You want a citation? Eat your heart out.
>http://www.thenation.com/article/independent-and-principled-behind-cato-myth/
Turns out the CATO Institute has gotten quite a lot of funding from tobacco companies...

>>8103329
>guy claims that the source of a claim gives it credibility
>someone attacks the credibility of the source
>HURR DURR THAT'S AN AD HOMINEM
>[current year]

>>8103500
>>8103503
>>8103505
>>8103507
plural(anecdote) != data
nice attempt to disguise the fact that 97% of studies that took a position on the issue came down in favor of the theory of climate change.

File: Top lel.jpg (73KB, 625x469px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 625x469px

>>8103500
>>8103503
>>8103505
care to explain why that list of papers allegedly "supporting skepticism" includes so many that made failed predictions, or aren't actually peer-reviewed papers, or outright SUPPORT the consensus regarding climate change? do you have an explanation of any of that?

and you're STILL doing it!
Michaels et al. 2002 comes up with results consistent with IPCC projections!

despite your claims of a 1.7-2.6 K predicted increase from CO2 doubling, Schmittner et al actually predicts 1.4-3.5K increase. you can't even get the most basic facts right!

Masters 2013 predicts a climate sensitivity to doubling NOT of 1.98 K as claimed, but rather a 90% confidence interval of 1.2 to 5.1 K. Again, your claims are CONTRADICTED by the sources you cite in support of them!

Ollila 2014 is published in "Development in Earth Science", a sham journal put out by a predatory publishing company. I suggest that if you want to make a point, limit your sources to those published by reputable journals, not those that will publish anything if you pay them.

what does it say about your claims that even the sources you cherry-pick to support them often contradict them outright?

>>8104022
Wasted dubs

What we're saying and what you're not getting is that discrediting the CATO institute simply because they're taking tobacco money is NOT the same thing as attacking or disproving their arguments, at all.

>http://www.thenation.com/article/independent-and-principled-behind-cato-myth/

All that talks about is Robert Levy saying that the tobacco related deaths are nonsense. What's your point? As far as I'm concerned he makes a good point about that.

As for connecting Levy to Brown and Williamson, it still doesn't discredit his arguments. Do you want to hate Kevin Folta for defending Monsanto too?

Of corse you don't; Monsanto isn't the tobacco devil you despise so much.

>>8104121
>What you're not understanding is that regardless of the vested interest I find their rhetoric to be very convincing.

>>8104143
>ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.

>>8104157
Not him. Why do you find the article so compelling? There is one article debunking it.

http://acsh.org/news/1999/10/01/a-critical-assessment-of-lies-damned-lies-400000-smoking-related-deaths-by-robert-levy-and-rosalind-marimont-published-in-regulation-fall-1998/

>Levy and Marimont fail to present a scientifically sound and convincing argument that the estimate of 400,000 annual smoking-related deaths is a specious, statistical gimmick. Their assumptions about the effect of potential confounders and their dismissal of relative risks less than 2.0 as a means to minimize smoking’s death toll are unsupported. Moreover, their criticisms of the CPS data and their disregard for the long-term impact of cigarette smoking are misguided. Our assessment concludes that the estimate that 400,000 people die from cigarette smoking each year is indeed reliable and may even be an underestimate.

>>8104157
>instead of attacking an assertion
>>rhetoric
>fallacy fallacy

This thread is /pol/ tier trolling. You all are wasting your time and energy trying to argue with slugs.

>>8104220
The point is that you can't fucking attack someone based on their funding, that isn't proof that they've done anything wrong and it doesn't discredit their argument or information presented.

>>8104211
again, and you seem to be missing this

>dismissing a relative risk ratio less than 2

There's nothing wrong with doing that. It's always been 2. See >>8102692, >>8102705, >>8102716

>>8104480
Bullshit.

>>8104480
The point is if it's relevant it's worth pointing out, and it was not the only response thus "waah fallacy" is idiotic.

>>8100612
But there WAS empirical evidence that the earth was at the center of the universe. From our point of view, the sun clearly moves from east to west along the ecliptic, and it's just another celestial body like the moon.

Climate change is real and definitely occurring, but human role in it is arguable. And I don't see any propaganda from the arguably "powerful organizations" than want to push against the climate change narrative, contrary to the vast and enormous push by green activists.

>>8097655
poor b8

>>8104686
People take funding from corporations/industry and lobby groups all the time and it isn't seen as a problem, except when the tobacco company does it due to the often pushed meme of them being evil since the 60's.

>>8104672
It's not bullshit. Pharmaceutical companies often fund studies as well. The CATO institute has made it clear from the beginning that they take tobacco money to fund their studies and they don't have any sort of bias or desire to fudge the truth to make the industry look good or have their opponents come off as deceptive.

What happened to attacking a person's argument instead of arbitrary things like their funding? Is doing that not popsci enough for you people?

File: Cash Money.jpg (69KB, 489x362px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 489x362px

>>8104121
>>8104157
>>8104480
guise, the only reason I even attacked the CATO Institute as a source is because some fag appealed to their alleged reliability. I basically said "this is a bullshit blog post someone made, it doesn't back its claims up with citations or evidence" and he was like "it's not bullshit or a blog post, a guy from the CATO Institute wrote it!"
right here >>8102882

>>8105214
>it doesn't back up claims with citations or evidence

It directly references the surgeon general reports, the WHO, and the EPA you ignoramus. Go look them up yourself, they take information from the organizations reports and statements.

>>8104949
If you want people to argue just the facts, maybe you should set the example by citing research rather than propaganda from PR groups?

>>8105214

>I won't look at the sources cited in the blog, or the argument that the blog makes, because IT'S A BLOG HURR DURR

The Cato Institute is super dumb but you are even dumber.

>>8105273
It's not propaganda though, it analyzed research and debunked it.

But if it's research people want there's a group of studies posted and discussed on longecity, secondhand smoke studies showing no risk, and the studies that are positive to smoking referenced on this page: http://hawaiianlibertarian.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-longevity-paradox-tobacco.html?m=1

If you search the titles of the studies discussed on that blog into google they all show up.

>>8097524
The only thing I think is being covered up is mind control. I think pheromones and subliminal messages are actually effective but mainstream science dismisses them because it's too scary what people would do with it. Criminals, corrupt regimes, etc

Geocentric model of the solar system (Earth at the centre) scientists were led by religious mythology about the solar system.

Sources matter, and it's very important who the fuck they're taking money from. If your sources are biased, then the rest of your argument loses credibility.

Maybe that's just my truth, but those are the rules I go by.

>>8105316
Just because someone takes money from a company to fund their own research doesn't make the research or arguments biased though. There's no proof that they are forced or persuaded to get favorable results based on the money flow. In many cases tobacco companies, for example, don't see the results of the studies until their publication.

>>8104480
Science doesn't deal in proof. In deals in probabilities. And when many of us here are not qualified to read the paper, understand it, and be able to critique it, we need to rely on trust, and measures of trustworthiness, such as conflicts of interest from receiving funding from tobacco companies.

>>8104691
>Climate change is real and definitely occurring, but human role in it is arguable.
Not according to isotopic analysis.

>And I don't see any propaganda from the arguably "powerful organizations" than want to push against the climate change narrative, contrary to the vast and enormous push by green activists.
lol

>>8097785
As someone with pretty bad gender dysphoria, I fully accept that it's abnormal and unnatural.

File: Having a drink.jpg (19KB, 413x395px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 413x395px

>>8105221
if by "directly references" you mean "obliquely mentions without actually citing", then yeah.
>>8105278
jokes on you, fag. I read the whole thing, and it made me a little dumber. I read through it, and I saw that it was literally just a bunch of overblown allegations unsupported by any facts and written in a sensationalist style that obscured the line of reasoning in favor of trumpeting the predetermined conclusions. you guys seem awfully salty that I called it what it is: a rambling blog post by a whackadoodle conspiracy theorist.

>>8105304
>it analyzed research and debunked it
what is it with science deniers and their weird focus on "debunking" stuff?

>>8105442
That's a blatant appeal to motive fallacy and an example of your own desire to discredit a person due to his funding and not his research. I'm tired of explaining this.

>Appeal to motive is a pattern of argument which consists in challenging a thesis by calling into question the motives of its proposer. It can be considered as a special case of the ad hominem circumstantial argument. As such, this type of argument may be an informal fallacy.
>A common feature of appeals to motive is that only the possibility of a motive (however small) is shown, without showing the motive actually existed or, if the motive did exist, that the motive played a role in forming the argument and its conclusion. Indeed, it is often assumed that the mere possibility of motive is evidence enough.

>>8105733
>what is it with science deniers and their weird focus on "debunking" stuff?

What's with alarmists and their weird desire to paint anyone who supports a cause they aren't fond of as denialists?

The article references studies and reports, reading them yourself will prove that they aren't sensationalizing anything.

The WHO 1998 report for example has been criticized heavily by other people as well.

http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/02/who-1998-report-passive-smoking-lets-be-honest

If you seriously can't look up these sources yourself and I have to fucking do it for you I guess I will, but you seem like your mind is made up to fit the conclusion you already want despite the evidence.

>>8098845
>implying we shouldn't have a world government
wew lad

>>8106430
Too many pro government ninnies involved in science these days.

>>8106379
It's not always a fallacy. PS: Neither is appeal to authority.

>>8106807
It's still a bad idea to attack something on that basis. It does nothing to discuss the science or research done, it instead focuses on discussing fund sources.

>>8106430
>Don't agree with the government
>Nowhere to go.

>>8104691
Do you not know the meaning of the phrase empirical evidence?

>>8101767
Also, when someone pointed out that longevity is full of crazy people, what's hilarious about that comment is that the guy saying smoking was good for you was in the minority. Everyone else on longecity (which would by /sci/'s standards be crazy people) were attacking him.

File: Cookie head.jpg (50KB, 580x724px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 580x724px

>>8106398
>The WHO 1998 report for example has been criticized heavily by other people as well.
yes, because the opinion of an IT salesman (not making this up) extrapolating wildly from a few cherry-picked studies is more credible than the entire medical community.
>this is what these people actually believe

>If you seriously can't look up these sources yourself and I have to fucking do it for you
basically:
>it's unreasonable to expect a document to cite its sources; it's the job of the reader to go and find the data himself
I suggest you take that approach next time you have to write a paper. include some quotes and attribute them only to the speaker's last name, and don't include any actual references.

>What's with alarmists and their weird desire to paint anyone who supports a cause they aren't fond of as denialists?
let's see...
>the earth isn't warming!
>co2 doesn't act as a greenhouse gas!
>there's no evidence that tobacco causes cancer!
>we've never observed evolution in action!
>the photoelectric effect isn't real!
>radiometric dating isn't reliable!
>there's no neurological evidence that sexual orientation is innate!
nope, no denial there!
if someone wants to tell me that raising the minimum wage to $12 nationwide will kill jobs, we can have a discussion on that. if someone wants to tell me that eating meat is inherently bad for you, I'll hear them out. that's because those claims are actually debatable; there's evidence for and against them, but there's no evidence strictly proving or disproving those claims.
you're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts. contra principia negantem non est disputandum!

>>8099421
>Its effectively the ancestry of white peoples fault that black people have an average lower intelligence, they spent a long time breeding the best and fasted workers, who tend to be less intelligent, and culling those who weren't.
Ah yes, because Africa was doing so well before the white men set foot on it, right? It was a thriving, utopian metropolis, yes? They didn't even know how to farm. They STILL fucking don't know how to farm in places--we come in and teach them but they wind up just eating the seeds and producing nothing in the long run.

I'm sick of this garbage meme where white people are vilified for their success and blamed for others' shortcomings. Fuck off with this unsubstantiated, racist, illogical garbage.

>>8107473
>I suggest you take that approach next time you have to write a paper. include some quotes and attribute them only to the speaker's last name, and don't include any actual references.

I'm having a difficult time finding the full reports myself, is all. I went and checked and I can find references. Closest thing I can find is the official websites of the WHO or EPA.

>>8107473
>the earth isn't warming!
>co2 doesn't act as a greenhouse gas!
>there's no evidence that tobacco causes cancer!
>we've never observed evolution in action!
>the photoelectric effect isn't real!
>radiometric dating isn't reliable!
>there's no neurological evidence that sexual orientation is innate!

So you're seriously just going to throw a to of conspiracy ideas and theories together and lump them into one little corner regardless of their overall credibility?

Not all conspiracies are created equal.

File: 100 Billion is all we want - IPCC.jpg (169KB, 1537x715px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 1537x715px

>>8103985
>>The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report stated: Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence).
>>The IPCC political organization which a predetermined outcome. Give us $100,000,000,000 a year!
Not impressed.
>>These are Bayesian probabilities, which are based on an expert assessment of the available evidence.

Bayesian approaches to physical science? Substituting the laws of atmospheric physics with "expert opinions." You've got to be kidding. Experts, who need to scare up funding coming up with high probabilities. #intothetrashitgoes

File: Fig 9 Jaworowski 1997a.png (43KB, 347x498px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 347x498px

>>8103985
>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113000908
>>Humlum et al.'s conclusion of natural CO2 rise since 1980 not supported by the data
>>Their use of differentiated time series removes long term contributions.

False debunking. Where was conservation of mass violated? It wasn't except by a circular argument of "only anthropogenic CO2 causes atmospheric CO2 increase, therefore conservation of mass is violated."

>Further analysis shows that the natural contribution is indistinguishable from zero.
More crap. Climate "Science" purports that the majority of atmospheric CO2 increase is from anthropogenic emissions. If this were true, the the yearly mass increase of atmospheric CO2 would strongly correlate to the yearly output of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. It doesn't! Instead it strongly correlates to temperature changes.

Temperature Changes are the best predictor of CO2 mass increase changes, not anthropogenic CO2 flux. Pic related. Source: Jaworowski, Zbigniew. "Ice core data show no carbon dioxide increase." (2007), Fig. 9.

Human CO2 emissions =/= correlate to atmospheric CO2 mass increase.
Climate Change theory falsified.

>>8103985
>>The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report stated: Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence).

Sorry buddy, the standard "sky is falling" scenarios have been debunked.

Debunked: Libardoni and Forest (2013)
This model–observation comparison Bayesian study (actually a corrigendum to a study originally published in 2011) uses an informative ‘expert’ prior distribution for ECS and an inappropriate uniform prior distribution for ocean heat uptake efficiency (the square root of ocean effective diffusivity, Kv). Use of such prior distributions will have biased, most probably upwards, the study’s ECS estimate. Using one surface temperature dataset, Libardoni and Forest find ECS to be lower,Kv
to be completely unconstrained, and aerosol forcing to be more negative, than the other two datasets are used. Yet with green-house gas forcing being offset to a greater extent by negative aerosol cooling and more heat being absorbed by the ocean, energy conservation implies that ECS would need to be significantly higher to match the twentieth-century rise in global temperatures, not lower. Since the Libardoni and Forest results thereby defy conservation of energy, they should be discounted. Although various errors pointed out in Lewis (2013) were addressed in this corrigendum, at least one was incorrectly dealt with, and the unsatisfactory way surface temperature data was used (see Lewis, 2013) was not altered, which may account for these problems.

>>8110519
>>8103985
>>The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report stated: Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence).

More debunking:

Lin et al. (2010)
Although this study is dealt is really an energy budget study that uses numerical solutions of an energy balance model. The recent TOA imbalance is derived from an outdated AOGCM-derived Earth system heat uptake/TOA radiative imbalance estimate (Hansen et al. 2005) of 0.85 W/m, taken as applying over the final decade of the 1885–2005 period used. That heat uptake is twice as high as the best estimate per AR5 over the same decade. Moreover, no allowance is made for heat inflow into the ocean at the start of the 120-year period. The method and model used, in particular the treatment of heat transport to the deep ocean, is difficult to follow and appears non-standard. In view of the greatly excessive system heat uptake estimate used and the questionable methodology, it is difficult to regard the results of this study as constituting a realistic estimate of ECS. The IPCC authors evidently also had doubts about this study’s ECS estimate; its range is marked as being incomplete at both high and low ends.

>>8110523
>>8103985
>>The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report stated: Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence).

BAYESIAN crap debunked:
Olson et al. (2012)
This model–observation comparison Bayesian study estimates ECS, ocean effective diffusivity and an aerosol-forcing scaling factor, using only global temperatures and a wide uniform prior on the aerosol-forcing scaling factor. That is an unsatisfactory method. Since greenhouse gas and aerosol forcing histories are extremely closely correlated (negatively), one can obtain a good match to historical global temperatures with a wide range of suitable combinations of ECS and aerosol forcing strength. That problem results in the study’s estimated PDF for ECS being almost unconstrained when using uniform prior distributions, which biases its ECS estimate upwards. The use of 0–700-m ocean, as well as surface, temperature changes provides only a very weak constraint on what ECS–aerosol-forcing combinations are feasible. Ozone forcing, which is significantly positive, was omitted: that can be expected to have increased the estimate of ECS substantially. Given all these problems, the Olson et al. instrumental ECS estimate cannot be regarded as realistic. Olson’s PDF and range for ECS shown under combination estimates is dominated by a non-uniform prior distribution for ECS that matches high AR4-era estimates for ECS, including from AOGCMs, as represented in Knutti and Hegerl (2008). Since the study’s combination ECS estimate is dominated by an initial distribution based on AR4-era ECS estimates, it should not have been treated in AR5 as if it were an independent observationally-based estimate. The Olson et al. combination estimate for ECS should therefore be disregarded.

>>8110528
>>>8103985
>>>The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report stated: Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence).

More debunking:
Schwartz (2012)
>Schwartz flip-flopped into an alarmist, probably to retain his funding.
This study derived ECS from changes up to 2009 in observed global surface and 0–700-m ocean layer temperatures, and changes in forcing based on forcing histories used in historical model simulations. Two methods were used. One was zero-intercept regression of temperature change on forcing minus heating rate, fitted to post-1964 data. Whilst this approach appears reasonable in principle, subject to the forcing and OHC history estimates being realistic, the regressions are very noisy. No allowance was made for heat inflow into the ocean in the late nineteenth century (estimated in Gregory et al. 2002, to be non-negligible); that can be expected to have biased upwards its estimate of ECS slightly. For two of the six forcing datasets used, the regressions did not explain any of the variance in the temperature data – their R values were negative. ECS best estimates derived from the other four forcing datasets varied between 1.1 C and 2.6 C.The mean R value for their regressions approached a value of 0.5. The second method derived ECS by combining the results of similar regressions (but without deducting the heating rate from forcing) with an observationally-estimated heat uptake coefficient. These regressions gave significantly higher R values.

>>8110530
Scwartz (2012) debunking continued:

The second method gave similar results for the four forcing datasets for which the first method provided a valid estimate of ECS, with an overall range (allowing for regression uncertainty) of 1.07–3.0 C. A fifth forcing dataset, which gave a positive R only for the regression in which the heating rate was not deducted, gave an ECS estimate using this method of 4.9±1.2 C. That accounts for the ECS range for this study given in Box 12, Figure 1 of AR5 extending up to 6.1 C. The regression R for this forcing dataset was low (0.29) and the study concluded that the forcing dataset was inconsistent with an energy balance model for which the change in net emitted irradiance at the top of the atmosphere is proportional to the increase in surface temperature. The 3.0–6.1 C segment of the ECS range given for this study in AR5 relates entirely to this one forcing dataset and, in view of the problems with it, should be regarded as carrying significantly less than the one-fifth total probability that would otherwise naturally be assigned to a part of a range
that related only to one out of five datasets.

>>8110532
>>>>8103985
>>>>The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report stated: Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence).

More debunking:
Tomassini et al. (2007)
The Tomassini et al. model–observation comparison study involved a complex subjective Bayesian method. For ECS, a set of priors varying between a uniform prior and a deliberately informative lognormal prior with a mean of 3 C, both restricted to the range 1–10 C, were used. A very inappropriate uniform prior was employed for ocean effective diffusivity (Kv) – the square of ocean heat uptake efficiency. The choices of prior for ECS and Kv will both have biased upwards the estimate of ECS. Although the method used encompasses inverse estimation of aerosol forcing via a scaling factor, only global mean observational temperature data is used, so the inverse estimate arrived at will be unreliable. The very high (negative) correlation between the time evolution of greenhouse gas and aerosol forcings on a global scale makes it impossible robustly to distinguish between different combinations of ECS and aerosol forcing values that each satisfy the energy budget constraint. The posterior distribution for Kv is multiply peaked, which should not be the case. The trace plot of the Markov chain Monte Carlo sample used to estimate the parameters reveals instability not only as to what Kv values are favoured but also as to with what combination of ECS and (indirect) aerosol forcing. In some sections of the plot it is not obvious that the combination of Kv, ECS and aerosol forcing values is consistent with conservation-of-energy constraints. In view of all these issues the ECS estimates from this study should be discounted.

>>8097553
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

The last organization which admitted climate change was man made was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, an organization FUNDED BY GODDAMNED FUCKING PETROLEUM MONEY

There is literally not one scientific organization left on Planet Earth which disagrees with man made global warming.

>>8110536
>>8103985
>>>The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report stated: Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence).

Debunking of the other unnamed studies in the IPCC Fifth assessment.

Debunked:Unlabelled studies Shown in AR5 Box 12.1, Figure 1.
The first unlabelled study range shown in AR5 Box 12.2, Figure 1 is from Annan and Hargreaves (2006), which is based on a combination of estimates from a last glacial maximum palaeoclimate study and from a study based on the response to volcanic eruptions, using a prior (initial) distribution which peaks at 3 C and has a 2.5–97.5% range of 1–10 C. Since AR5 deprecates ECS estimates based on both these methods and also because the prior distribution used strongly favours high ECS values, no weight should be put on the results. The other unlabelled AR4 range is from Hegerl et al. (2006), which combined its own last-millennium proxy estimate with an instrumental estimate from a modified version of Frame et al. (2005). Problems with these studies, in particular Frame et al. (2005), were described above in the context of the PDFs in Figure 9.20 of AR4. The Aldrin et al. (2012) combination estimate, which likewise uses a last-millennium proxy-based estimate from Hegerl et al. (2006), gives a much lower and better constrained ECS range – showing that the palaeoclimate estimate used has little influence – and is much to be preferred.

File: Propaganda vs Science.png (161KB, 407x309px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 407x309px

>>8104022
>>>8103500
>>>8103503
>>>8103505
>>>8103507
>plural(anecdote) != data
>nice attempt to disguise the fact that 97% of studies that took a position on the issue came down in favor of the theory of climate change.

A mere 36 papers. I just added 24 papers + 11 below = 35 (including here, >>8110517).
51% CONSENSUS

Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?
(Euresis Journal, Volume 2, pp. 161-192, March 2012)
- Richard S. Lindzen

Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change?
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 94, Number 16, pp. 8335-8342, August 1997)
- Richard S. Lindzen

CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic's view of potential climate change
(Climate Research, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 69-82, April 1998)
- Sherwood B. Idso

Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?
(GSA Today, Volume 13, Issue 7, pp. 4-10, July 2003)
- Nir J. Shaviv, Jan Veizer

The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005)

Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges
(Astronomy & Geophysics, Volume 48, Issue 1, pp. 1.18-1.24, February 2007)

Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future (Physical Geography, Volume 28, Number 2, pp. 97-125, March 2007)

A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
(International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp. 1693-1701, December 2007)


Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 72, Issue 13, pp. 951-970, August 2010)

What Do Observational Datasets Say about Modeled Tropospheric Temperature Trends since 1979?
(Remote Sensing, Volume 2, Issue 9, pp. 2148-2169, September 2010)

On the recovery from the Little Ice Age
(Natural Science, Volume 2, Number 7, pp. 1211-1224, November 2010)

>>8110480
the point that guy was making is that the evidence presented to "debunk" those IPCC predictions is actually consistent with them. just another example of deniers posting information that actually contradicts their claims...

>>8110517
>False debunking.
did you read the paper?
>Pic related.
that graph is worthless for the simple reason that it's comparing two rate-of-change variables (the CO2 ones) to a state variable (temperature) as if they were the same thing. also, he literally just says that the CO2 increases look kinda like the temperature graph (no statistical analysis whatsoever!) and ignores the fact that in the 50s and 60s, temperature is falling slightly while both CO2 trends are rising.

and of course there's the inconvenient little fact that CO2 increases track temperature only at year-to-year fluctuations and the larger trend follows emissions quite nicely. he's mislabeled temperature anomaly as raw temperature also, but that's small potatoes compared to the other issues here.
not to mention, care to tell me which journal that article was published in?