There are people who unironically believe being skeptical or criticizing man made climate change should have you black...

>there are people who unironically believe being skeptical or criticizing man made climate change should have you black listed and disqualified from talking about it

How did we reach the point where people started to think "I'm so right that you're not allowed to question how right I am or else your opinion is irrelevant" is proper science?

Is this not the most anti scientific sentiment accepted in the scientific community?

Other urls found in this thread:

blogs.nature.com/news/2012/07/amid-criticism-berkeley-earth-extends-record-upholds-findings.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

it started with holocaust denial

both are disgusting limitations on free speech

>be in australia
>dont have any formal legislation regarding free speech etc.
>thank fuck for that

literally don't have to listen to your fucking bullshit, you genuinely don't have the right to harp on about how the earth is flat etc., noone has to listen to you

another example: hate speech will probably get you punched in the fucking face before it makes some SJW cry

Gotta love a sunburnt country ;)

But every study that tries to link climate change is doing exactly that, questioning AWC. It's just that their results are not the ones YOU personally want, so you probably dismiss them as part of a global conspiracy of climate scientists.

>going against the scientific findings is the scientific thing to do

>climate change papers are trying to falsify their main hypothesis of AWC

hahaha dude, they gave up all pretense of objectivity and scientific ethics over a decade ago, what kind of rock do you live under?
t.phd student

hate speech is everywhere in australia, you guys just laugh it off and claim it to be friendly banter. "oi curry, why don't you fuck off back to paki, HAHAHA, what wrong mate? i'm just having a laugh with the lads. chill the fuck out paki. you what? called me a cracker? oh that's hate speech, lets fuck this filthy paki up boys."

also, when i was living in epping, NSW, every month some one in the neighbourhood would stick "flyers" on lamp posts, and it was always some photos of naked little girls. the worst part? all the people jogging and walking their dogs everyday didn't even tear them down. i couldn't fucking believe that shit.

gotta love a sunburnt country indeed.

>t. crackpot with a PhD in reading blog articles

But with the way this issue is politicized and discussed in the media and in schools, it seems that people (laymen) are being taught to accept these findings in an uncritical way. You're not allowed to question it, or you're a mouth-breathing, right-wing, religious extremist and you deserve to be hanged.

That's ridiculous. I agree with OP. Since when is it proper for a scientist to encourage this acquiescence in those who are not actually doing the research themselves?

Who are these people you're talking about?

Oh ok so when you take a fluid mechanics class you argue with the teacher, before learning any formalism, until he has convinced you his model is good enough?

I fail to see the relevance of your example. Fluid mechanics is not politicized in the way climate change is.

Yeah man we should totally submit the LHC finding to a vote instead of letting those eggheads analyze the data lmao

This is STEM, not social sciences. Truth comes from expertise and analysis, not from fucking debate.

So because it's politicized laymen are more competent, when it's obvious in any other field that they aren't?

Clearly STEM people need to work on their reading comprehension.

Did I say we vote on it? No. I was merely arguing about the presentation of the data to the masses. Do we say shut up and trust us? Or do we convince them with logic and data?

Jesus Christ you aren't understanding my point at all. When did I say that laymen have the authority to overrule any scientific findings?

Learn to fucking read.

>When did I say that laymen have the authority to overrule any scientific findings?
When you said
>it seems that people (laymen) are being taught to accept these findings in an uncritical way

Besides you're not fooling anyone. You're not being critical, you're just repeating what you read on a """""skeptic""""" blog.

classy retort, socrates would be proud
>tfw you reinforce OPs statement perfectly

Its called moving the goalposts, user . Faggots often do it when they get called out for making poor arguments and realize they are losing the debate.

I might as well give up. You're clearly not capable of understanding my point. I'll try once more, however.

This is about what attitude a laymen ought to have, and how we treat them as scientists who are more technically knowledgeable on these issues.

Is a laymen supposed to say "I don't know anything about climate science, I guess I'll just let any person who claims to be in the know tell me what to think, and I'll accept it uncritically." Or would it be more proper for a laymen to adopt an attitude of skepticism and properly look into the issue for himself? Clearly the latter is preferable, and we ought to encourage such behavior.

Which brings me to the 2nd aspect of this issue, the attitude of scientists. It seems that many have adopted the method of ad hominem when dealing with climate change deniers. Is it proper for a scientist to mock skepticism? Maybe in some cases where it's apparent that evidence has been presented and is being ignored for political purposes. But if someone has legitimate questions, why discourage that? If a layperson wants to examine the evidence for themselves, and go through the steps of logic which scientists have already traversed before him, why discourage that?

Clearly the reading comprehension and communication skills of many STEM people leaves much to be desired if this is the kind of meta-scientific conversation we're capable of having.

you are perfectly free to disprove it.
the fact that people question this so much more than any other scientific consensus suggests that the questioners are the politicizers. disprove it or stop getting in the way. the reason you get jumped on for questioning it is not only because the evidence is strong (and yours is weak) but because this could be the most serious existential threat humanity has faced

and you wouldn't be frowned upon for starting up over it either, but im guessing you're a bit of a cuck ;)

>muh freedom

I'll add one more point, them I'm out.

As far as I can tell, most scientists hardly give a shit if a layman understands much science at all. Maybe they care a little bit if you ask them, but hardly anybody goes around acting butthurt when a layman doesn't understand the biology of a frog or a horse.

But climate science is different. Because it's a political issue. Because it says something about how we ought to regulate our economy. This affects everyone. We want the world to be and behave a certain way; others resist because they don't like what it does to their business, or because of what it does to the power their government will wield over them consequently.

Don't pretend that climate science in and of itself is some holy artifact of science. It's the same as any other discovery. If it wasn't so politicized, nobody would give a shit about climate change skeptics. They would be ignored and laughed off like flat-earthers or something. But since we want political results out of this science, we suddenly get butthurt when people question it. The butthurt is political, not scientific. And the ridicule of skeptics is also political, not scientific.

The scientists generally behave just as politically as the questioners. See my 2nd to last post in this thread:

>hurr durr if you disagree with me you're only proving my point
nice unfalsifiable position, shithead
OP isn't wrong about the diagnosis, he's wrong on it being a bad thing.

The layman is supposed to say "I don't know anything about climate science, so I'll trust the experts instead of some fucking blogger and an old astronaut"
>and properly look into the issue for himself
You have clearly no fucking idea of how long it takes to look into the issue yourself.

>ad hominem
You clearly don't understand the problem there, or you are the equivalent of an Internet newborn and have never tried to debate "skeptics".
They don't argue. They copypaste everything they can get their palms on. You can't outdebate them, you can't prove them wrong. You know why? Because it's faster to make up unsubstantiated bullshit than it is to debunk it.

It happened on this board the other day too. OP is a "skeptic" that advances some dumb argument. He gets explained why it's wrong and instead of re-evaluating his position, he literally dumped a massive copypasta and asked "can you reply to each of those points please?"
No you fucking brainlet, no I fucking can't. You can't spend your life responding to crackpots, especially when the next idiot will come up with the exact same fucking claims.
If you want to actually debate (and not be instructed, which is a different thing) you have to prove that you have an understanding of the topic. If your arguments are entry level crackpotery that show you have absolutely no knowledge of it you have no fucking place opening your big fat mouth, and yes you should be rightly mocked for it.

Politeness isn't just saying "hello" and "goodbye", it's doing your homework before you give your vindictive opinion.
Actually if there's one thing the general public has to be taught, it's fucking rigor, and that the truth isn't a rethorical process.

The ridicule is plenty scientific. Yes it's political, no shit, which is why you get plenty of laymen grasping to any crackpot that could potentially validate their views.
You said it yourself, it's perfectly legitimate to make fun of flat earthers. Therefore it's perfectly legitimate to make fun of anyone else who uses the same methods, ie climate "skeptics".

no no, you are right, no one gives a shit about you skeptics, except that one might become president and remove the EPA. The choice is binary, the evidence points the other way and we need to take action, so fuck skeptics and skeptic politicians and people obsessed with climate change being presented as fact.

>le man made climate change isn't real!
>it's all a conspiracy!
>meanwhile the dust bowl that happened in 1930's America occurred because of shitty farming methods in several states that caused loose soil to be carried by strong winds causing devastating dust storms inflicting economic havoc and human suffering along the region
>meanwhile in fucking 2010's China's extensive pollution dramatically reduce the air quality dropping the average lifespan of it's citizens by five years and several neighboring countries are having increase occurrences tuberculosis

But it's alright op, keep thinking humans don't have influence on the earth's climate. Surely creating all these emissions for industrial production and displacing all this land for farming will NOT have an impact on earth's climate. After all surely we can depend on our oceans and trees which have clearly adapted to rapid human development to act as dependable carbon sinks that definitely won't falter in the future.

>global conspiracy of climate scientists
No, just natural selection. Supply follows demand and in a competitive environment scientists adapt: promise scary results, get grant money. The study of natural climate cycles receives little funding but it still exists. Interesting times ahead..

>abloobloo they are not getting the results I want so it's all crap!
Let's see your model big boi.

>using this shitty argument after it's been exposed skeptic bloggers were on big oil company payroll
yeah no, update your shitty rethoric bag

oh i did over that pedo shit, but all i could do was tear down as many of those flyers as possible. the community passively condones it and i suspect many secretly enjoy it. i always thought australia was just up to the old trick of using pedo as an excuse to limit internet freedom, but perhaps there really is such a need in over there.

Nobody in this country would even get out of their seat after getting racially insulted, let alone "cracker"

>tfw alt-righters think they're "redpilled" for blindly disagreeing with literally every single opinion the rest of the world has

>Supply follows demand and in a competitive environment scientists adapt: promise scary results, get grant money.
Except even a casual browsing of the news would show the exact opposite - a significant fraction of politicians deny AGW outright, and the ones who don't still do everything possible to limit and delay action about it.

Did you seriously watch through the Paris talks, and decide "hey, these folks are really trying to push this"?

The implication of course being that there isn't a massive amount of scientific explanation of climatology and AGW for the laymen... when there clearly is. The problem isn't that scientists have ignored laymen or have failed to explain their theory with logic and evidence, it's that the arguments from people who deny AGW are indistinguishable from the arguments of experts to the layman. Whatever nonsense Joe the Plumber writes on his blog about homogenization is no less convincing than what a scientist writes because the laymen does not know enough to figure out which one is right. So then these arguments themselves have to be debunked with further arguments. Which are then "countered" ad infinitum.

This is no different from any other science denial like evolution, vaccines, flat earth, etc. The only people who complain about the "tyranny" of scientists on those issues are the partisans who deny the science. No one is barred from questioning science in any issue, what you are really complaining about is that your pseudoscientific arguments are not taken seriously.

What do you mean they are getting shut out? It is just that no one listens to them.

Your opinion is not heard =\= your opinion is not allowed.

>living in Parramatta

Yeah, nah

Trying hard to obfuscate AGW scaremongers being caught manipulating data ?

>if you disagree with me your only proving my point

not my point at all, dipshit. my point was that your only fucking retort was an ad hominem debasing my education and standing and completely lacking any actual response to the point I had originally made, which was that AGW advocates at the highest echelons of science have long since abandoned any pretense of the trying to falsify their own hypothesis, and instead build up papers around what they want to be the result, often with outstandingly lavish conclusions that fail, time and time again, to bear any fruit.

There have been multiple criticisms of this, some of them even from within their own community. People realize the wheels are coming off and the science is leading the facts instead of the other way around.

How is this a "point" you fucking faggot. You simply stated you think all the climate scientists stopped being scientific.

What is stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Also eat shit.

>Interesting times ahead..
and a Quiet Sun

>tfw nu-leftist doesn't get the point
Not even surprised.

This. As if anyone would be offended by some weak as fuck insult like "cracker"

>I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. The method isn't the madness that we’ve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU, and, there aren’t any monetary strings attached to the result that I can tell. ... That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything we’ve seen yet.—Anthony Watts

Poor Andy.

blogs.nature.com/news/2012/07/amid-criticism-berkeley-earth-extends-record-upholds-findings.html

If you wanna be retarded, no ones stopping you. But you will be treated like a tard in a free society until such a time when you decide not to be a tard.

>people are treating me like an idiot for saying something stupid!
You should be allowed to state your opinion, but your opinion is not owed equal consideration.

How is this different from any other issue. Censorship has always been practiced by those in power.

What was once blasphemy and treason, is now racist, misogynist, or what ever word would be suitable to what you're saying. While as children of this era most of us can certainly agree that modern reasons for the censorship are better than the older ones, the basic principle hasn't changed one bit. There will always be a popular view, one that greatest power in the society (be that church, the ruling family, the government or the majority of the people) supports. Anything opposed to that, will always be stifled, persecuted for, and spat on.

For my part, I think OP is a frigging douche. The climate change is a scenario in which it doesn't matter which way you weigh the risks vs. rewards, either way the best logical course of action is to stop dumping toxic shit into the environment. But I fully support your right to express your douche opinion, regardless.

Because your douchebaggery aside, NOTHING is more dangerous than a society where you're only able to hear one side of an argument. The truth, regardless of what it is, is never in an extreme. It's always something in between the views presented, even if strongly leaning to one side over the other. Both sides always lie, manipulate and exaggerate after all.

>Because your douchebaggery aside, NOTHING is more dangerous than a society where you're only able to hear one side of an argument. The truth, regardless of what it is, is never in an extreme. It's always something in between the views presented, even if strongly leaning to one side over the other. Both sides always lie, manipulate and exaggerate after all.
This is a completely retarded argument. I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or honestly think you're smarter for picking the "golden middle".
Not every fight is between two equally bad parties.
Not every truth is found by compromise.
Sometimes people are just wrong.

>there are people who unironically believe
[citation needed]

YOU HAVE BEEN BLACKED

You're missing the point.

Yes, many things, many views are just wrong. But in the bigger picture, completely censoring scientifically false views will invariably migrate over to the theoretical, and matters of opinion. And suddenly instead of censoring false facts, you're censoring differing, valid viewpoints.

This is similar to the idea that there are no stupid questions. If people can't voice their doubts, views and feelings for fear of being forcefully silenced, then it will always lead to problems. No doubts would be raised against accepted theories without perfect proof, even if there was reasonable doubt way before it. No-one would defy those with authority or power, even if there was cause. No one could ever speak their mind, if they were uncertain.

People aren't binary creatures. Stupidity and false information should be handled transparently by simply facing it off with overwhelming evidence and support. Not by censorship.

>nu-x
Keep projecting, trumplet.
>>>/8gag/