Climatologist here

Irŕlevant. Come argue with me gwbdee fluid fanny tranny.

And what do you study ?

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

Huh? Sorry, I was counting my 300k

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

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

Make predictions that actually come true

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thats about philosophical interpretations. Not the underlying science.

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the advice

pls give me nudes

Why are scientists dictating global economies?

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

Does that mean we get to bring back eugenics too?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>prove
>proven science

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You seem to be conflating Veeky Forums with the /pol/tard infestation.

>You seem to be conflating Veeky Forums with the /pol/tard infestation.
What /pol/tard infestation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>/pol/tard
Post disregarded.

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

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

I don't know you tell me

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

Why not?

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

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

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

You're pretty sure about that. Proofs?

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

Tits or gtfo

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

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

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

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

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

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

FAKE FOSSIL SHILL THREAD IS FAKE