If a science doesn't allow any kind of criticism, is it really a science?

If you're not allowed to criticize a theory without mobs of shills coming after you silencing you, and any straying from this doctrine is seen as heretic, how much validity can this science possibly have?
This dogmatic approach to global warming is what really makes it sound like a religion.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=DrWznOFq38s
youtube.com/watch?v=-AwNKQqLESc
money.cnn.com/2016/12/15/pf/college/devry-settlement/index.html
cultureandreligion.com/html/religion_of_agw.html
youtube.com/watch?v=HXSgp755DSA
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

theres no point in listening to random crackpots. come back when you have a PhD in atmospheric physics :))))))

Science community has always been like this. But wheres the evidence that global warming isn't happening? I would love to read your source.

>I'm not allowed to criticize something without being criticized
Are /pol/tards really this stupid or is this bait?

Molyneux has already debunked this hoax
youtube.com/watch?v=DrWznOFq38s

not a poltard, i'm an engineer

>not a poltard, i'm an engineer
oh boy, if only you could realise how much that statement will damage the already ridiculed engineers on Veeky Forums...

>Molyneux
>debunked

Two words that immediately discredit a person

He's not the only one who got it firgured out, everyone is catching onto this hoax. You should try and keep up withe latest scientific findings.
youtube.com/watch?v=-AwNKQqLESc

even worse

Science accepts criticism, from informed sources. Not neckbeard science.

so it's inherently flawed. i agree with that.

Oh boy, it's another moron from /pol/ who thinks "freedom of speech" means immunity from criticism.
You're allowed to criticise AGW, and we're allowed to laugh at you for being an idiot who believes conspiracy blogs.

sorry, you're not making any sense

The (((science))) behind AGW is primarily social science. Of course it's a religion in every way and can almost be labeled neo-Pagan.

Climate priests like any priest is a sort of authority figure. They can conjure up scary climate scenarios on their super computers, this is prophecy. They can disseminate these prophecies through a world wide propaganda media network, the etymology of propaganda is propagation of church dogma. As scary as these scenarios are there is of course always a fix, a way to save ones soul. In this case if enough CO2 emitters repent, and a CO2 tithe is collected, the prophecies may be forestalled and earth along with the climate heathens saved! this may involve great sacrifices up to and including life itself!

Any rejection of this dogma is met with an Inquisition of sorts, called deniers now this could easily escalate to a climate heretic hunt with weather vane crucifixions!

Like any religion time will tell if it sticks as it gets hold of the children before they attain any critical thinking skills for themselves. The problem with pop religion today is it's great anti-thesis, pop science. This is where the pure genius and Machiavellian nature of the growing AGW cult shines...
>To control the opposition we should lead it ourselves - Lenin

You type like you have some serious mental issues man. Seems like you would fit in much better over at what are you even doing on this board?

I bet you think you're really smart making a long winded post like that. I can smell the pseudo intellectuality from my monitor.

>But wheres the evidence that global warming isn't happening?

It's happening, but it isn't catastrophic the way the alarmists are attempting to sell you.

In fact it has quite a bit of positive potential.

Not an argument.

best post so far. i always knew that btw

Tell me, how many posts on /pol/ do I have to read before I can hold informed opinions like you?

Yes, I've begun to notice this due to the EM drive.
Poor babby physics majors are scared that their hoax is going to be found out and all their power gone when it turns out things don't work the way they tried to sell it to us.

I honestly don't understand why you're here. Apparently you hate science, and you hate the scientific process, so you spend time on a board, mind you one of the slowest boards on Veeky Forums, to shit on it.

That's like someone who hates homosexuality hanging out on /lgbt/, or someone who hates brony faggots hanging out on /mlp/ all day. The sad thing is I recognize your post style because you are probably the same faggot who has started the climate change political threads here over the past few months. So it begs the question, why the fuck are you here?

instead of being a touchy faggot, you should thank him for opening up and teaching you something

>implying you're qualified to criticize scientific theories based on what you read from your facebook feed and butt hurt no one takes your psudo-intellectualism seriously.

If you're so sure the earth is flat and that gravity is a hoax then go out and prove it and publish your work in a pier reviewed scientific journal and overturn the current paradigm.

If you wont do that then you really are not in a position to criticize and if you do no one will take you seriously.

No amount of effort will ever cure your retardation, I'm sorry user.

>pier reviewed
hey i remember that thread. thanks for the memories.

>Thank him

Yes, let me go ahead and """thank""" a brainlet like him who posts Molyneaux videos to disprove decades of atmospheric evidence and data. Wow you sure convinced me buddy. Next you'll be posting links to some shitty climate """skeptic""" blogs that present nothing but cherrypicking and conjecture.

I can already see this thread is going to evolve into another shitpost festival like all the other threads these /x/ & /pol/ newfaggots have made here ever since the election ended and they branched off to other boards due to boredom.

No please I want to know. How many Molyneux videos must I watch to be qualified to make posts such as yours?

>The sad thing is I recognize your post style because you are probably the same faggot who has started the climate change political threads here over the past few months. So it begs the question, why the fuck are you here?

The sad part of this is, I'm not the person who made the post about AGW being a religion, I just felt like triggering you because you made a literal non-argument.

You're the one who hates science because you shit up a science board with non-sequiturs and telling people to leave rather than having an actual scientific discussion, all while acting like you're a psychic who can tell who's who in an anonymous forum.

Please buddy, you're going to make a post like that, and then claim you're here for scientific discussion? Get the fuck out. Also, Veeky Forums is indeed a very small board with a very small userbase, so yes I can tell when someone has a very similar style of posting to the same faggots from previous AGW threads here. You're the same faggot who whined and cried about communism and AGW being a religion in the last thread, same exact """arguments,""" same exact sentence structure and pompous arrogance. Same use of your little (((memes))).

Zero, as I've never watched him. ('Not an argument' is a fantastic meme though)

Like I said, nothing you ever do will allow you to start thinking critically and seeing past propaganda.

99% of science is criticism. People who's arguments don't hold up are ignored. People who's arguments do hold up are accepted.

You would know this if you studied any kind of science ever.

>He can't comprehend someone trolled him on Veeky Forums by posting the phrase, 'not an argument'

Discussion with you could never be fruitful, your head is too far up your own ass to be able to comprehend a word.

Too bad. I was looking forward to being smart like you. Oh well. I guess we can't all be redpilled free thinking individuals that come to their own conclusions like you.

hey molyneux is one of the greatest intellectuals of our time, that's an established FACT.
besides I'm not a /pol/ newfaggot, i'm an engineer who dares to ask interesting tough questions and speak truth to power

>Engineer

Now you're just shitposting, this is a bait thread, should have known better.

If you want to turn this into a real discussion, I'm willing.

I'm the one claiming AGW is positive.

>hey i remember that thread. thanks for the memories

sorry but that's the way it works. If you can't articulate the results of your experiments to a group of people qualified to evaluate your work then you don't get credit for it. That's what pier review is and if you have a problem with that concept we can add it to the list of other things you have a problem with such as gravity and the earth being roughly spherical.

OP will 100% post solid, peer-reviewed criticisms of climate change.

>pier review

>Molyneux has already debunked this hoax
If you don't trust climate scientists who have the credentials to study this for a living why do you trust a guy with a YouTube channel?

Full retard.

>A pier review is when a group of scientists gather to review someone's papers for publishing. The term pier review came about when foreign scientists arrived by boat at the pier to review with the local scientists and for convenience did it at the pier. Nowadays a true pier review is done on ceremonial occasions for especially important papers.

>If they go to a bar to review its called a beer review.

see i know what pier review is

Because he's redpilled, also not an argument buddy. Everyone knows that (((climate scientists))) are bought and paid by the NWO church of atmosphereology run by none other than your kenyan monkey lord president. You see, let me tell you about the jews and the kikes, see Alex Jones for proof. It's all a globalist conspiracy you stupid shill, god you scientists are so fucking stupid. You do it for free and you buy into (((their))) ((((climate change))) propaganda, you filthy dumb goy. Also climategate, also this image that is completely credible and infallible. There, ROASTED AND DEBUNKED. Next argument please. Don''t believe these (((scientists))) and their (((models))) lies. I don't know what anything on this graph actually means, but I know its lies, just like everything else in your jewish tricks. This is pier reviewed proofs.

Thanks for redpilling me. I will begin spreading the word.

...

So much circle jerking in this thread.

Nobody wants to discuss climate change, they just want to feel superior for having the 'correct opinion'.

Anytime somebody comes in with something outside of what's been rubber stamped correct you either ignore it or reply with snark and memes.

No wonder this board has been such shit for the last 8 years.

>last 8 years.
>Veeky Forums
>8 years old

you have to go back

This is clearly bait. If it isn't, then you suffer from a level of abject retardation so profound it defies any reasonable explanation. Tsk tsk, go back to /pol/ and play hopscotch with your fellow tribals, you complete fucking troglodyte.

>Anytime somebody comes in with something outside of what's been rubber stamped correct you either ignore it or reply with snark and memes.
That's because those people aren't coming in with interesting and new information, they're reciting dead arguments that have already been torn apart hundreds of times. How many times should I need to explain why weather isn't climate and 1998 was a warm year before I can start telling the person spouting that rubbish to fuck off?

So what if I were to say I think higher CO2 concentrations is actually a good thing?

It will help mitigate drought and even expand vegetation into currently dry areas because plants lose most of their water through transpiration, and higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations mean plants can fulfill their need while spending less time with their stomata open and thus conserve water?

What if I said I know for a fact that scientists often exaggerate the importance of their research to gain funding, so I think the alarmism is mainly to justify their own grants?

What do you think of the idea that carbon taxes are idiotic, and that local transforming measures make far more sense as local variables dominate local climates, as historically that's the way to deal with man made climate change (see the dust bowl).

>transforming measures
terraforming*

>So what if I were to say I think higher CO2 concentrations is actually a good thing?
Can you link to a paper by a person with credentials who argues this?

>But wheres the evidence that global warming isn't happening?

The question is human causation. You have to prove first that your theory is a good one and can make reasonable predictions about the future. Making claims and then saying the burden of evidence is on the other isn't Science.

There is plenty of evidence to show, that at the very least, we are on a temporary warming trend.

>Can you link to a paper by a person with credentials who argues this?

The first paper ever published on the subject.

Beyond that, we're on an anonymous discussion forum. It's my own opinion on the subject. I don't care for appeals to authority (especially when I already laid out that grants corrupt science).

>be crappy college
>advertise that you are a crappy college
>get sued because people thought they would get a job and make tons of money even though every one knows its a crappy college
STEM BTFO

money.cnn.com/2016/12/15/pf/college/devry-settlement/index.html

Higher concentrations of CO2 mean nothing if it causes a depletion of other resources at the same time. Yes, of course some plants may actually benefit from a higher amount of CO2, as long as they are supplemented in other nutrients that plants need to grow and flourish as well, you know, water, nitrogen and phosphorous from healthy soils.
Sure, some areas of the planet could benefit from a warmer climate, but for every region and every plant that does, there is another where a changing climate results in a climate shift, resulting in more droughts, which in turn leads to poor soils, which in turn leads to a drop in plant growth.
CO2 is only one element of necessity for plants to be abundant. An argument for this case is a greenhouse. Many greenhouses artificially increase CO2 in them in order to grow the plants faster, and it works, but also because the plants have adequate and regulated nutrients from their soils, as well as adequate water. You increase all of these elements and plants are going to benefit, but climate change doesn't always result in a net benefit of every single one of these characteristics.

Science allows for criticism.
Scientists allow criticism.

Idiots do not. Don't get science confused with the idiots on here. Just because your average moderator does not want to take charge of the board, and is allowing Veeky Forums to degenerate to the point where it's users have actually impacted the nation in such a negative way, doesn't mean criticism isn't allowed by non-autistic scientific communities.

>So what if I were to say I think higher CO2 concentrations is actually a good thing?
I would call you a fuckface, because we've been over that in basically every one of these threads.

>local transforming measures make far more sense as local variables dominate local climates
You can't adapt to a moving target - no mitigation or local adoption will be enough if you don't also stop making the problem worse.

So can you link it?

If it informed your opinion I'd like to read it for myself.

DeVry is a for profit college. A private college. That is what you should expect from private institutions.

If you are not going to a state funded public university then you are getting cheated out of money and time.

>but for every region and every plant that does, there is another where a changing climate results in a climate shift, resulting in more droughts

See and this I think is false.

I think local variables are always going to dominate local climates, far more than a minor global variable like CO2. The goal is managing local climates so they adapt to the increasing CO2.

In fact this should be the agenda even ignoring CO2. The Sahara could be terraformed if we had the political will to do it. It's local histories that are dominant, not minor global variables.

>making the problem worse.

A CO2 concetration of 50 PPM would be a far larger problem than a concentration of 800 PPM. You can't just assume it's a problem.

The ocean acidification is worse than anything else.

>You can't just assume it's a problem.
I'm not just assuming it's a problem, there's a shitload of actual research that clearly shows it's a problem.

It's also all done by people trying to justify their own funding. That argument has actually become more persuasive to me once I began reflecting on my time in STEM.

Friends in biology talking about how they have to make the claim their research could have applications to cancer research, even when they honestly expected no such thing.

A professor in condensed matter saying how he is funded by DARPA because of applications to quantum computing, which he laughed about to us as being nonsense.

I honestly think CO2 is just a major distraction from more pressing environmental issues, especially when you consider solutions like new generation nuclear reactors simply aren't being pursued at all.

>The question is human causation. You have to prove first that your theory is a good one and can make reasonable predictions about the future.
Already been done. Greenhouse effect and its related feedbacks have been proven in many different ways.

>Making claims and then saying the burden of evidence is on the other isn't Science.
No, of course not. The science is the massive amount of published papers on this subject which you morons always try to pretend doesn't exist.

>A CO2 concetration of 50 PPM would be a far larger problem than a concentration of 800 PPM.
What? How is the concentration going to get to 50 PPM? What does this have to do with anything? Eating no food is worse than eating too much. That doesn't mean you should eat too much. Where do you morons get these "arguments"?

Is 9,000 calories a day too much food?

For some it's necessary.

That's the argument. Your incredulity just makes you look like a dithering fool.

>Is 9,000 calories a day too much food?
>For some it's necessary.
I can't tell if you've missed the point or are intentionally avoiding it.

...

>I think local variables are always going to dominate local climates
Non-sequitur. Droughts are local weather events. Sea level rise effects people locally. All of the negative effects of climate change are local phenomena caused by global variables. How are you going to prevent increased droughts locally? How are you going to prevent sea level rise locally? The math has already been done. Moderate carbon taxes will save billions of dollars in ecological damage and decreased productivity in the future, above what they cost. And that's simply from disincentivizing carbon emissions. Even more money will be saved if those taxes are invested into further mitigation and technology.

I think it's you that has missed the point.

>It's also all done by people trying to justify their own funding.
Exactly, any scientific fact can be denied with this one simple trick.

If 9000 calories a day was the average diet, the population would be suffering severe harm.

If 800 ppm was the average global concentration of CO2, the population would be suffering sever harm.

>So what if I were to say I think higher CO2 concentrations is actually a good thing?

You have no idea what higher CO2 will actually mean. Nobody does because it's an extremely complex situation that has far reaching effects. So I'd have to label you as an uneducated moron.

It's really not that complex. Higher CO2 -> more heat trapped in atmosphere -> rapid warming -> more CO2 and mostly negative effects toward the ecology and infrastructure humans depend on.

No, really you missed the point. We aren't talking about 800 ppm for "some" parts of the earth but for the entire earth.

>>If you're not allowed to criticize a theory without mobs of shills coming after you silencing you
and how exactly are you silenced?

>buddy
I recognize you now.
You resort to name calling and ad-homs. Your zealous use of "buddy" makes your posts easily identifiable. Obviously you are an avid supporter of AGW. I am an avid critic but my line of thinking is not unique and yours is about as unique as any cultists. I don't think we are really buddies and that's fine.

This guy gets it
cultureandreligion.com/html/religion_of_agw.html
>Whatever debate there is only centers on events that are weather related and then there is a leap of faith that global warming was involved and so CO2 must be reduced to prevent the event from happening again
He even went ahead and delved into the data sets so went further than myself. I don't need to, I recognize cult building when I see it and AGW is textbook with the largest cult on the planet, the Catholic Church, dogpiling on it like flies on shit.

It should be plainly obvious through the scientific method that AGW is merely a very questionable theory, the debate is not over and there is a somewhat obvious agenda attached to power and control of not just the people who subscribe to it but real world natural resources that are critical to modern life those being fossil fuels and CO2. It's hardly even a conspiracy, but a blatant power grab as any and all solutions offered up solve no problem of significance and in fact detract from real world problems with real world solutions. This is the real danger of any religion. Keep praying to your climate priests and their political handlers and see where that gets you, buddy!

Not an argument

Oh, you mean the same threads in which every single time someone supporting AGW provides facts and evidence for the phenomenon, the posts receive zero replies because you have no actual argument aside from buzzwords like "climate priests," or "political handlers." It's funny actually, because you can say the same exact thing about deniers of climate science with their "cult" of denial not based on the scientific process, as well as their "political handlers" aka people like James Inhofe, Lamar Smith, or any other petroleum-funded shill in congress, but apparently you don't see the irony in that sort of statement.

Not once in this thread, or any of the previous threads on Veeky Forums about AGW has anyone presented a shred of credible evidence questioning the data that exists. There's a point at which cherry-picking and grasping at straws just ceases to work in your so called "debate." It's also hilarious how you continue to harp on about "ad hominem" when there's many situations in which you do the exact same fallacy. For example, attacking climate science as a "cult" or using "climate priests" as an attack on credible researchers and scientists in the field is the very definition of an ad hominem attack on a scientific concept. If you want to discredit climate science, present evidence, not baseless conjecture with no proof or evidence.

You simply cannot state something like "[it's] obvious through the scientific method that AGW is merely a very questionable theory" without backing that statement up with anything but ad hominem that you apparently despise so much.

>It's all a religion because I say so!
Stop. You've made that claim many times now, and every time someone challenges it you've done nothing but repeat it over again. Actually support your claims, or fuck off.

>cultureandreligion.com/html/religion_of_agw.html
It's a mound of "CO2 is plant food, not pollution!" tier rubbish. Boring.

>It should be plainly obvious through the scientific method that AGW is merely a very questionable theory
Why even bother saying shit like this? If it was "plainly obvious", you wouldn't be arguing with people. Moron.

>not a poltard, i'm an engineer

youtube.com/watch?v=HXSgp755DSA

Are you zizek overdosing on redpill? I want more of your manuscripts

>*palms own nose making grunting noises

Criticizing a theory outside of the language is probably not an effective method of criticism.

As for the example in OP you can question the political ramifications of global warming all you want. That's one of the battles I choose not to fight.

Climate change WAS challenged, About 10 years ago the scientific community was somewhat divided on the issue, but now they've all converged to the same conclusion. The evidence is simply too strong for any logical, critical thinker to refute. This does not make it a religion. If it did, then believing in electrons would be a religion, or believing in the photoelectric effect.

Youtube videos and statements from right wing politicians are not evidence. Science is evidence. We should listen to the fact before we build opinions.

>science doesn't allow any kind of criticism
Lrn2science fgt pls

>pls spoonfeed me teh evidence
gtfo fgt pls

>got it firgured out
L0Lno firguret pls
>...the chairman of the United States Senate Committee
>on Environment and Public Works does not
>understand what Global Warming is.
...and neither do you, fgt pls

This is exactly why the thread was created. If you have a theory - present the evidence. If, when asked for proof, you spout "i don't have to educate you" or some such you look terribly similar to folks 'proving' a spectrum of genders, and it's a bit suspicious.

So, i'll ask again - is there a decent model that shows human influenced climate change and was, so far, experimentally shown to not be wrong? If so, please point me to it.

there is little point in trying to argue these people.
if you point out how they are being retarded, they will call you a shill.
if you point out that actually they are the ones on the side of massive money (fossil fuel industry = AGW denial sponsors), they will call you a shill, even louder than before.

they will "debunk" your peer-reviewed meta-studies of hundreds of peer-reviewed studies by posting a pixelated infographic .gif file, showing a blurry graph with unnamed axis and infowars as a cited source

>is there a decent model that shows human influenced climate change and was, so far, experimentally shown to not be wrong?
maybe before asking the question, you should first learn the english language.

after that, you can do the standard approach that applies to all fields of science: you check the published peer reviewed literature.
asking on Veeky Forums is not a way to get reliable information on anything

Maybe that's because you arrogantly appeal to authority over and over again, just a though.

Can you point me to the model?

Christ, this shouldn't be so difficult, no science needs authority to be proven. If you a convinced why not convince others? Surely there is enough information on the internet already, just post some goddam links.

>make a lengthy post describing how it's pointless to argue with denial-idiots
>denial-idiot tries to get me to argue with him
nice try, I r8 1/10 since you got me to respond.
I guess you're not hiding the fact anymore that you're just a troll. Good luck to you

So, within Veeky Forums, reliably at least, you cannot. Saying you cannot present a model is basically saying you cannot make a statement that you think is correct and would agree with an experiment.

And if you ever wonder this is the region, within Veeky Forums at least, you are a religious person - you believe claims you, by your own admission, cannot make a non-wrong theory about.

I would think this is the reason people tend to disregard you, not because those people are, necessarily lack certain character qualities.

Following this line of thought - if you're theory exists (presumably) only in nice places filled with like-minded people what is the effective difference between it and a religion?

Who cares whether or not global warming exists?
Aren't there more important issues like the collapse of society?

who cares knowing and understanding how the climate works. care about >MUH DEGENERACY instead, please i beg you care about it.

molyneux:
>i am a libertarian
>close the borders

>intelligence is not genetic
>intelligence is racial

>there are no decent christians
>christians > atheists, i'll even "cry" while saying it

>voting is always unjustified
>vote trump is the right course of action

the guy has 0 principle

you are arguing with a retard, just ignore

Science does allow criticism, but you gotta have more than "LOL its fake". For God's sake OP, man caused climate change is a consensus in academia.