Now what Veeky Forums? The math was wrong on "global warming"

youtube.com/watch?v=nLuBgZ1bgoY

Soooooooooooooo, can we start approaching this all from a scientific basis and put the emotion away now? Please?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=ZwURLwd8pEA&t=2s
youtube.com/watch?v=U3hCR_yCvkk
abc.net.au/news/2011-07-19/monckton-letter/2799750
theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/22/thatcher-climate-sceptic-monckton
bbickmore.wordpress.com/the-church-of-monckton/
youtube.com/watch?v=9K74fzNAUq4
nasa.gov/offices/ogc/about/space_act1.html
physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/eprints/eprintLovejoy/neweprint/Anthro.climate.dynamics.13.3.14.pdf
youtube.com/user/potholer54/search?query=model
youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco
science.sciencemag.org/content/289/5477/270
advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/11/e1501923.full
science.sciencemag.org/content/302/5651/1719
nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n2/full/nclimate2876.html
nature.com/nature/journal/v536/n7617/full/nature19082.html
nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n3/full/nclimate1784.html
nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n10/full/nclimate1963.html
nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n11/full/nclimate2397.html
nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n11/full/nclimate3110.html
pnas.org/content/106/38/16120.abstract?sid=e88a32fa-d470-486d-92ea-97bf18db30c9
pnas.org/content/97/4/1406.abstract?sid=39886508-9022-4ac9-a270-9bb8f2c84dac
pnas.org/content/106/Supplement_2/19729.abstract?sid=39886508-9022-4ac9-a270-9bb8f2c84dac
pnas.org/content/104/14/5743.abstract?sid=39886508-9022-4ac9-a270-9bb8f2c84dac
news.berkeley.edu/2016/12/05/during-last-period-of-global-warming-antarctica-warmed-2-to-3-times-more-than-planet-average/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>infowars

Let me guess... I should go back to or or...

How to win an argument using the scientific method of deflection. Sad.

>infowars

Actually, I was going to suggest

or
>>>/kys/

He's so inbred that it makes me ashamed to have aristocratic ancestry. My genes are probably full of errors.

Wow, some really fact based scientific arguments you guys are making. Please continue, you're just proving my point. Thank you.

global warming threads are made by schizophrenic /x/tards with their le end is near roleplaying garbage. Not one person in Veeky Forums believes this tired old meme that have failed over and over again for over 25 years.

Just redirect /x/tards back to theri boards. Keep Veeky Forums clean.

No one has to respond to Infowars you dumb cunt. Inforwars is a the product of Alex Jones, aka le epic water filter / brain pill snake oil salesman. It has no merit worthy of a scientific response.

If you link to some actual scientific peer-reviewed papers that present evidence that doubts AGW, go right ahead and we can discuss the data. Otherwise, your click-bait journalism is not worth discussion.

Besides, there have been ample threads on climate change on Veeky Forums in the past few days. Go ahead and check the archives if you want to see some actual discussion where scientific data is discussed.

Why are you so emotional? I thought this board was dedicated to math&science, not emotion? I guess I was wrong. Thank you for continuing to prove my point.

Here's a board for you guys >>>/emotion/ maybe you all should go there?

/x/ pls

>dedicated to science
Which is exactly what OP is missing

Yawn...

>Infowars
youtube.com/watch?v=ZwURLwd8pEA&t=2s

to be fair, the other threads on this subject have had about as much real content as this one does

>schizophrenic /x/tards
posting pattern points to a single Goremon

He says int eh video that there might be 1 or 2 C in warming
Isn't that what's already been predicted/happened?

my icecream is melting faster than usual proven by statistics. this is definitve proof that glabal worming is real.

There are many models, but 1-2C is on the low end for the end of the century. Some models go as high as 8C, but the more widely accepted I believe is 2-4C in change by 2100.

So he says the problem is the Delian problem, and that the calculations are at the wrong end of the curb. He doesn't reference anything, he hasn't written this in a peer reviewed article, and from the looks of it, this "mathematician" doesn't actually have a degree in mathematics.
So it's barely different from the climate models, no wonder I'm having a hard time finding this revelation outside of Moncktons little circle.

No. He said a 1-2 degree warming at DOUBLE the current level of co2, 500 years from now at current production.
Easy t complain about Alex Jones. There would be no Alex Jones if the media was fair and unbiased. They created him, and your right he's often wrong. Funny how the msm is never called out for all the fraudulent news they've produced over the years. The msm even went to court and won its right to lie to us. Fake news indeed.
youtube.com/watch?v=U3hCR_yCvkk

Monckton bunkum

>Treating Christopher Monckton as a legitimate climatologist
>Serial liar who claimed he was a member of the House of Lords
abc.net.au/news/2011-07-19/monckton-letter/2799750
>Claims he was a "chief science advisor" to Thatcher in an aim to gain some kind of credibility / authority
theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/22/thatcher-climate-sceptic-monckton
>Was a key speaker at Heartland Institute from '08 to '10, a conservative "think tank" that receives funding from the petroleum industry in order to spread climate science denial

I could go on, there's far more damning stuff about this moron.

The fact that people like "infowars" treat this man as a credible voice on the issue of climate science is completely asinine. He has never published a single peer-reviewed scientific study. A man who has not a single ounce of scientific training. It's astounding that anyone treats this man as a voice of reason in a field which he has no deeper understanding of. Maybe if they actually bothered to interview an actual climate scientist who wouldn't just parrot bullshit they know their audience will eat up, they would have some legitimacy.

This guy is widely seen as a complete joke by legitimate climate scientists.

bbickmore.wordpress.com/the-church-of-monckton/

Also, a great video on the douche.
youtube.com/watch?v=9K74fzNAUq4

Infowars is the brand name of a company called Genesis Communications which is owned by Disney - ABC. MSM may not be what you think it is anymore.

>To control the opposition we should lead it ourselves - Lenin

He literally said 150 years in the video, not 500. 2 degrees and double CO2 in 150 years is nothing to sneeze at.

I like how he points to ancient mathematics for his "proof". The computer model is based on predicting human behavior, not just a statistical trend.

OP, please stop making climate change threads already, this is at least the second time.
I'm not sure if you're genuine or merely baiting, but I will give you the benefit of a doubt and assume the former.

The reason noone disproves you is because you put forth nothing of substance.
You posted a video from a source that most people find unreliable, in which a guy claims to have found an error in the calculations for climate change.

As the guy says in the video he has submitted the paper to peer review.
You should have made this thread if, and only if this guy's paper actually manages to pass peer review.

Anything before that is just one guy making some claim.
Sure, you could just look at the paper and review it yourself, but I doubt anyone on Veeky Forums has the qualifications and the time to do that.
Science is not done on imageboards, even if the board's topic is science.

Also it is very obvious from your posts that you do not have a scientific background, which is why noone bothers to take you seriously in the first place.

The worst part is this is not the first time Monckton has claimed he was a published scientist. He has claimed numerous times in the past that he has published "peer-reviewed" scientific papers, when in fact the only thing he has ever published was an article in a non-peer reviewed "Physics and Society," a quarterly newsletter part of the American Physical Society, which simply presents letters, book reviews and non peer-reviewed articles on the relations of physics and the physics community. That is a direct description by the newsletter itself.

He has no academic background in climate science whatsoever, his academic background in in Journalism.

Thank you for an intelligent response. I was starting to lose all hope. You're also right about my scientific background, no degrees. I have however read every university level text book I could get my hands on in geology and astronomy. It's been a hobby for over twenty years.
What I've learned from my studies albeit much less intensive than most people here, is that nothing in science is written in stone. Science is an ever changing and progressive discipline. So why are we so sure about climate change? We're basing all of this one way or the other on roughly 100 years of accurate measurement. I would fully accept climate change, if Earth was 100 years old.
Meteorology can't accurately predict the weather two weeks from now, but climate scientists can absolutely without question predict the future. Not to mention all the rampant emotion that seems to lead the science around. Thanks again, cheers.

>We're basing all of this one way or the other on roughly 100 years of accurate measurement.
That is wrong.
You also have data from which you can estimate the levels of carbon dioxide and the temperature further back.
What you will find is that Earth's temperature has always been changing, but these changes have always been very slow.

If you look at recent developments, you will find an increase in temperature that is much faster than those previous changes, and that beginning of that increase correlates with the start of the industrialization.
Since then the process by which greenhouse gases lead to an increase in temperature has been well understood, and the burning of fossil fuels has been identified as one of the driving forces.

If I remember correctly I recently read that according to scientific consesus climate change has a ~95% percent chance of being caused by humanity.

Of course it is still very much possible that our current understanding of science is wrong, but humanity is taking a terrible gamble here.
Burning fossil fuels gives us an advantage in the magnitude of 10 years, but we will have to deal with the consequences in the magnitude of 10,000 years.

>Meteorology can't accurately predict the weather two weeks from now, but climate scientists can absolutely without question predict the future.
You also can't predict what number a dice will roll next, but you can predict that if you roll that dice six million times, each number will show up about one million times.
Similarly the fluctuations of the weather cancel out over long periods of time, which is why we can predict climate over much longer periods of time than weather (note that weather and climate are two different things).

>Not to mention all the rampant emotion that seems to lead the science around.
The science is not lead around by emotion, the public discussion of the science is lead around by emotion because that is what gets public interest.

>post actually using logic to discredit OP instead of just saying
>infowars
>OP doesn't respond
lel of course. sage and hide this fucking thread

posts like these are what get Veeky Forums to actually discuss, OP. it's clear this guy has a scientific background and his mind is in that headspace as well.

you can't just post a video from an unreliable source and expect poignant discussion.

Thank you for taking the time. Considering your responses, I'm sure your time is very valuable. I'm still fully on the fence about this, however I greatly appreciate you. Good day Sir.

Actually I'm just a physics student.

Then there's a lot of hope for the future. Your time is still very valuable. Student or not you come across as exceptionally bright and well spoken!
You've persuaded me to look more into this subject before I open my yap again. I'm sure Veeky Forums appreciates you too! hahaha

he said he was a mathematician though

He created a math game called the Eternity Puzzle? Anyone ever hear of it?

>fact based scientific arguments
>infowars

>friendly fire

He says a lot of things user, see

No, he said 1-2 degrees per doubling of CO2.

As soon as he publishes his findings in a peer reviewed article.

Isn't peer review in climate science slightly biased these days? If 97% of climate scientists agree on AGW because their paycheck depends on it, then the field is just an echo chamber hug box.

It's not like any "science" that came before it, there is no application except to enable politicians to implement a tax on CO2 molecules based on climate doom scenarios? This of course does not a lot to curb the proliferation of CO2 molecules unless more draconian CO2 molecule law is implemented on a global scale? Does climate science really justify this end considering the complicity of the science and potential inaccuracy of the CO2 molecule simulations? These are simulations of a very large and very dynamic earth, the margin for error seems enormous.

>Isn't peer review in climate science slightly biased these days?
No.
Even if it was it is certainly no more biased that monckton bunkum and infowars, I mean are you serious, lmao.

>because their paycheck depends on it
Citation Needed

There's no application in understanding the dynamics of changing climate and our atmosphere, or sea level rise, or any of the other impacts that climate has on our civilization? Is that seriously what you're trying to imply here? The entire purpose of science is to increase the knowledge of humanity in retards to observed phenomena. You seriously believe that understanding the planet that we live on, our only home, the only place we can live and survive on isn't a worthy endeavor?

Climate research groups get their grant money from organizations that have a vested interest in global warming being real, because if it isn't, then their funding goes away.

That's why I cannot stand the modern NASA. Half of NASA's budget goes towards investigating global warming bullshit. Even if it is real and everything, I hardly see how that is NASA's domain to investigate. It's the same political bullshit that killed Zubrin's Mars mission because the shuttle teams didn't like how it didn't include them (ie they became useless).

Climate change "scientists" are hardly scientists at all. In my opinion, a true scientist is skeptical, even of his own claims. He looks at evidence and creates a model based on it.

Climate scientists made a conclusion, and then a model to fit it. And every year as their models are proven woefully inaccurate, they just keep changing their models rather than changing their assumptions.

inb4 100 >(You)s about how I'm a retarded scientific illiterate or something.

Get the emotion and politics out of science, please.

If a climatologist proved that climate change isn't happening that would be a groundbreaking discovery which would give them everlasting fame and a prestigious career.
You don't get how the research incentives work.

You are retarded and scientifically illiterate though. Saying "inb4" doesn't invalidate a response.

NASA gets that funding because satellites are an extremely good way of measuring things like climate, ice sheets, ocean temperatures etc.

It took me a few hours, but the end result was worth it

Oh look, the same old "muh it's not NASA's objective to understand Earth science" bullshit that people like you peddle. Maybe you should investigate the history of the organization, because one of NASA's primary objectives from the start was climatic research, which was extremely relevant to launching rockets into space at its inception.

Let's go back to the National Aeronautics and Space Act, the federal statue that created NASA, these were its objectives:
>The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space
>IN THE ATMOSPHERE
nasa.gov/offices/ogc/about/space_act1.html

>get the emotion and politics out of science please
You first please, considering that conservative politicians are one of the many reasons that climate denial propaganda is so rampant among people like yourself. Why do you think scientists are so fucking fed up with being treated like they are part of a global conspiracy?

Just because you believe someone isn't a scientist, doesn't mean they aren't. They collect empirical data, they do research and they publish their ideas and data through the scientific method. That is science, and it is how climatology has advanced as a science over the past century.

Anyone can get money to research the Earth's climate, even denialist climate scientists. If someone wants to collect data and do research with the idea to reject the current understanding of AGW, they are more than welcome to do that, and have their data peer-reviewed and published in a scientific journal. This is necessary in the field of science, if you want to prove your ideas, you must present evidence. This is something that the vast majority of denialists simply fail to do, as the vast majority of them do not publish anything at all, and if they DO publish, it is usually not in Earth Sciences.

Why do Trump supporters believe there is some sort of global (Chinese?) conspiracy that nearly all climate scientists are into, when at the same time the fucking CIA says that Russia influenced the election and they call it unproven bullshit

Just something that came across my mind

Since there wasn't enough space in my last post, here is the full National Aeronautics and Space Act objectives:

>The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;
>The improvement of the usefulness, performance, speed, safety, and efficiency of aeronautical and space vehicles;
>The development and operation of vehicles capable of carrying instruments, equipment, supplies and living organisms through space;
>The establishment of long-range studies of the potential benefits to be gained from, the opportunities for, and the problems involved in the utilization of aeronautical and space activities for peaceful and scientific purposes.
>The preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space science and technology and in the application thereof to the conduct of peaceful activities within and outside the atmosphere.
>The making available to agencies directly concerned with national defenses of discoveries that have military value or significance, and the furnishing by such agencies, to the civilian agency established to direct and control nonmilitary aeronautical and space activities, of information as to discoveries which have value or significance to that agency;
>Cooperation by the United States with other nations and groups of nations in work done pursuant to this Act and in the peaceful application of the results, thereof; and
>The most effective utilization of the scientific and engineering resources of the United States, with close cooperation among all interested agencies of the United States in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, facilities, and equipment

Atmospheric sciences has and always will be a part of NASA's objective. You are clearly delusional if you believe otherwise.

>because if it isn't, then their funding goes away
[citation needed]

>that retard from /pol/ thinking his yokel wisdom was a valid form argument actually came here to tell them
lmao what a retard, just die already

Right click->inspect element

This is precisely what is suspect the way I see it. It is a hypothesis yes but impossible to prove or disprove for the simple reason it is a projection first and foremost, even if temperature did substantially rise 100 years from now it does not automatically imply it was man made climate change.

My real beef though is with the absolutely mind boggling scale - all of earth, the almost infinite variables - the entire periodic table and unlimited molecular chemistry involved, the unknowns - future tectonic, volcanic and solar activity, the enormous computations involved with obscenely large data sets and of course the built in bias based on the thesis itself, that man is causing climate change as I imagine there is not a lot of research going into that anti-thesis, man is not causing climate change.

This is why I think AGW is analogous to a religion. A frequent argument of AGW supporters is that even if the "science" is wrong it can't hurt? Or the label denier which is too close to heretic for my liking. OP is correct, this particular AGW science has a suspicious emotional content attached usually only found in the religious realm.

If global warming isn't science maybe you should stop making threads about it in the science board, buddy.

> all of earth, the almost infinite variables
That's just your ignorance though.
There are ways of analyzing data, even with chaotic effects from many variables.
By using a wide variety of statistics techniques.
You also seem to think that scientists are averse to such discussion when it's the opposite.
Usually the "arguments" from amateurs against climate change fall short, because scientist have already discussed that extensively (it's their day job).
>there is not a lot of research going into that anti-thesis
And this is basic ignorance of the scientific method, which is used to disprove the null hypothesis.
If you mean recent research, that's because that debate already happened and convinced researches that their energy is better spent in more promising questions.

Of course there is a chance that it is wrong. That's what science is trying to determine, whats right and whats wrong. But when you have so many trends which all point to the picture of man-made climate change, statistically, the chances of that being all wrong are small. Small but calculable. This guy puts it at 0.1% chance that it is wrong.

physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/eprints/eprintLovejoy/neweprint/Anthro.climate.dynamics.13.3.14.pdf

Thats a 99.9% chance that climate change is influenced by humans. Thats the best we can do. We obviously can't directly prove it. But we're pretty damn certain its happening.

But I get the impression there's literally nothing we could show you to change your mind. I wish more people would look at the evidence before deciding their opinion, not the worth way round.

>findings are not yet published and are currently under review

>implying infowars isn't God
>implying monckton isn't Jesus

>absolutely mind boggling scale
boggles YOUR mind maybe, brainlet.
>the entire periodic table
just how much lanthanide metal do you think has a significant effect on the atmosphere?
the atmosphere is composed pretty much entirely of O, N, C, H, a little S, and small amounts of the noble gases (He, Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe, Rn). with windblown dust and surface weathering, you can say that Na, Mg, Fe, Si, Al, K, Ca, and P play a role. but any siderophile, any low-abundance lithophile, isn't going to have any quantifiable impact on the atmosphere's workings.
this is such a minor point, I know, but it's emblematic of how deniers are willing to make shit up to push their agenda of "U CAN'T KNOW NUFFIN".

>built in bias based on the thesis itself, that man is causing climate change as I imagine there is not a lot of research going into that anti-thesis, man is not causing climate change
what is a null hypothesis
you literally don't know how basic statistics works

gobackto/pol/

youhavetogoback

I never make threads, only participate as an enemy combatant. Buddy.

Since when has science taken the entire earth and every molecule on it, jammed them through a computer simulation and predicted their effect on climate and had the nerve to call it science? Seriously, way too many variables to be taken seriously. Admit it, this "science" was just a means to an end, a global fossil fuel tax as supplies are limited.

>This guy puts it at 0.1% chance that it is wrong.
Wrong? It's more than a simple dialect, what is mans effect is .00001%? What then? It's really grasping and again all projection based on far too many variables to be taken seriously let alone be basing a tax on it. You admit it could be wrong, this is not the true spirit of applied science. If we want to curtail fossil fuels let us search for the real reasoning, not because maybe they are warming the planet because that smells like horseshit and opens the door to even more corruption and bigger lies.

You are trying to sound clever, call me a denier and then accuse me of pushing an agenda? I am merely questioning what looks to be mostly wild speculation being passed off as science. You are saying earths climate can be modeled accurately and with precision? I am saying that notion is ludicrous. What happens if the Yellowstone caldera blows a gasket? Will this no skew the precious models? What about a single volcano eruption the likes of Krakatoa?
Do they even factor in the worlds livestock? The effect of large water bodies? The weather itself? The variables are almost infinite and you make it sound like it's just a matter of listing some atmospheric elements and calling me a brainlet? You sir are an ass.

>Do they even factor in the worlds livestock?
Yes.
>The effect of large water bodies?
Yes.
>The weather itself?
Yes.
Amazingly enough, the people who do this for a living actually put some thought into their models. Seriously, the examples you gave are, like, some of the FIRST THINGS you put into an atmospheric model.

>I am merely questioning what looks to be mostly wild speculation being passed off as science.
You're claiming that because YOU can't understand how it's possible to accurately model global climate, it's not actually possible to do so. This is sometimes known as "argument from incredulity" and is fallacious because of the implicit claim of "if it is possible, I can understand it". Just because YOU lack the capacity to make sense of it doesn't mean it's nonsensical; sometimes it's just that, well, you're a brainlet.

>What happens if the Yellowstone caldera blows a gasket?
Models typically don't account for black swan events like that because they are ultra-low frequency and ultra-high impact. (For the same reason, actuarial life expectancy tables don't account for the possibility of a meteorite impact wiping out half of humanity.) But the Yellowstone hotspot has NOT had a cataclysmic eruption in recorded history; so long as this remains the case, models can be accurate without needing to account for it. See how this works?

There's more to climate science than computer models. Here's a good video on it with plenty of citations. Also the same guy that Monckton pussied out on debating.

youtube.com/user/potholer54/search?query=model

I don't know if you're aware of this, but the scientific community is very hard on fake research.
I'm doing some minor lab practice as part of my degree (old experiments that are really just practice and whose results don't matter at all) and if you fake your results there that can already get you suspended.

Also if you look at history, you will find that climate scientists have been reporting climate change long before it became a matter of public interest (~20 years if I remember correctly).

>And every year as their models are proven woefully inaccurate, they just keep changing their models rather than changing their assumptions.
No, they probably factor in effects that were recently discovered and then change their models based on that.
Or they get better hardware to make their models more accurate.

>My real beef though is with the absolutely mind boggling scale - all of earth, the almost infinite variables
You don't calculate climate change on a molecular level, just like you don't calculate the trajectories of artillery on a molecular level.
You separate the earth into small pockets of air with a constant humidity, temperature, etc. and then make your calculations based on those pockets.
In any science you can almost always find an approximation for large scales that is reasonably accurate because due to statistics the effects of small events cancel each other out.

see youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco

>inforwars.com
fgt pls

Yellowstone is not going to erupt again. The magma column is too deep. It's dead.

>/pol/ intellectual

>It's more than a simple dialect, what is mans effect is .00001%? What then?

Can you please provide some actual data instead of just plucking numbers out of your ass. This is why deniers can never be taken seriously.


>You admit it could be wrong, this is not the true spirit of applied science.

Not true at all. In science you should always assume that you could be wrong.

> based on far too many variables to be taken seriously

Have you never heard of statistical analysis? Statistical models are rampart in science because, guess what, they work.

>If we want to curtail fossil fuels let us search for the real reasoning

Thats what thousands of scientists around the world have been doing for decades. They've found the reasoning, You just won't listen to it

>that smells like horseshit

So its incorrect because you don't feel like its correct?

I swear you have to be mentally deficient to argue against climate change when the actual EVIDENCE is so one sided.

Climate change is a meme, even if i believed it's manmade i'd pretend not to because pretentious lefties are so fun to rile up

God bless ExxonMobil

Here are a few papers from to top 3 general science journals. This took 3 minutes to find. Don't ignore the science.

science.sciencemag.org/content/289/5477/270
advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/11/e1501923.full
science.sciencemag.org/content/302/5651/1719
science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6313/aaf7671
science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6311/465
science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6293/1517
nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n2/full/nclimate2876.html
nature.com/nature/journal/v536/n7617/full/nature19082.html
nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n3/full/nclimate1784.html
nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n10/full/nclimate1963.html
nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n11/full/nclimate2397.html
nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n11/full/nclimate3110.html
pnas.org/content/106/38/16120.abstract?sid=e88a32fa-d470-486d-92ea-97bf18db30c9
pnas.org/content/97/4/1406.abstract?sid=39886508-9022-4ac9-a270-9bb8f2c84dac
pnas.org/content/106/Supplement_2/19729.abstract?sid=39886508-9022-4ac9-a270-9bb8f2c84dac
pnas.org/content/104/14/5743.abstract?sid=39886508-9022-4ac9-a270-9bb8f2c84dac

>starts at 1750

ayyy lmao

The ultimate real Red Pill
>Algebraic proof
>Alg((h))ebraic
>hebraic

Have you swallowed the hardest red pill yet? So called ((science)) and ((mathematics)) are a jewish creation, an instrument to subjugate and destroy the white man.
>create ((science))
>build a whole structure around it to make it look logical and reasonable
>attribute every invention the white man achieved through his intuition to ((science))
>foster ((science)) to religious status and use it to subvert centuries long traditions and supplant Christianity
>use ((science)) to push sexual perversion and loathing of the white man
>use ((((scientific consensus))) to create the global warming hoax
>use ((global warming)) to create the perfect tool of white genocide: carbon tax

0/10

That's just what a jew would say

You've guessed correctly.

news.berkeley.edu/2016/12/05/during-last-period-of-global-warming-antarctica-warmed-2-to-3-times-more-than-planet-average/
If man made climate change is a thing and current models are right previous warm periods are supposed to be less warm than current one, yet we know that previous warm periods were several times warmer than current one.

>100% of biologists believe in evolution
>evolution is an echo chamber hugbox

Refer to

Are you having fun?

Well said.

>flat earth papers never get peer reviewed
>this means scientists must accept round earth to get paid
>thus the earth is flat. QED

Every day

>If man made climate change is a thing and current models are right previous warm periods are supposed to be less warm than current one
False, try again.

I guess you're right, I'm Jewish and I give it a 0/10 too
you may take your (You)

>100% of Physicists believe in relativity

Oh no, turns out my field is an echo chamber SJW hugbox waah.

thanks i worked hard for it

Just ask anyone how hard it is to get funding. When I was a researcher it was said that a US researcher used on average 30 percent of the time to obtain new funding. The fight for funding is brutal and even the slightest whiff of irrelevance will kill your lifeline.

At least until your house burns down.

>hey I discovered something new which completely overturns the conventional wisdom
>I feel so irrelevant
dude, if you shake things up you get the science equivalent of All The Pussy.

>if climate change isn't real, climate science will cease to have any kind of meaning
that's how stupid /pol/ is