After watching this video I have become a skeptic

There is evidence of global warming and a catastrophic event. It is caused by natural by earth processes.
Recycling is pretty good though -desu ~ At least all our shit will be in a nice and orderly pile when the next earth shattering disaster hits. IF we do make it safely to the future then we should have stuff like floating cities and shit by 2030 at least. Hopefully.

>le 1998 memegraph
consider sudoku

Oh i'm not denying climate change, I'm denying human made climate change.

could you just stop posting on sci? At least stop making threads?

If it was a feedback and a cause, the temperature would've rose exponentially.

I'm actually not posting the threads, but I think I've inspired more people with my comments to question established beliefs since the first thread. Which is a good thing.

I won't stop posting in them because I have no other place to talk about this. In academia my papers would be accepted, but I wouldn't be able to work again.

"It's dangerous when you are right where the establishment's men are wrong." - Voltaire

>After watching this video I have become a skeptic.

Then you're a weak minded faggot on the same level as the flat earth brigade.

>In academia my papers would be accepted, but I wouldn't be able to work again.

Because....?

See

>>In academia my papers would be accepted, but I wouldn't be able to work again.
Bullshit. BULLSHIT.

People publishes data that reel in some aspect of climate alarmism all the time in academia. Pic related is a published paper that argues exactly the same argument you had, CO2 follows temperature and lags temperature by 200 yr. The main author Frederic Parenin just got an established researcher job at LGGE, Grenoble France one of the main European frontier for ice core science.

Your argument is Alex Jones tier paranoid conspiracy bullshit with absolutely no proof other than huffing and puffing your chest while saying "believe me"

>as the flat earth brigade.
Are you seriously so un-imaginative that you can't see that a working flat-earth model exists--that functions as well as our current 3d model--but has yet to be discovered? May never be revealed.
Gravity worked before some guy came up with a model for it.
Lots of stuff existed before we came up with models of Reality.

Responded there.

No it's not, I don't publish it because I'm in fucking USA. Although to be fair, with the death of the EPA I could probably publish now.

You should learn how feedbacks (in general, not just climatology) actually work, a lot of people have pretty severe misunderstandings about them.

Christ nigger take it easy I think you meant to respond to , I was just asking why he would lose his job if his work was published

Give us the abstract of one of your papers.

>I think I've inspired more people with my comments to question established beliefs since the first thread
translation:
>some /pol/ kiddies saw my threads and decided to get in on the fun, and now there's three people shitting up the board with this paranoid pseudoscience, instead of just one

are you the guy who kept posting that (unpublished) paper claiming that cellphones can cause cancer because the photoelectric effect doesn't work the way all of physics says it does?

>No it's not, I don't publish it because I'm in fucking USA. Although to be fair, with the death of the EPA I could probably publish now.

Again absolute lies. Crockpot of Malarkey.

Ed Brook from Oregon State wrote the perspective exactly on that paper. He's still alive and kicking currently as one of the major ice core labs in the US fully running with NSF funding.

Valerie Delmotte the second author of Frederic Parenin's paper was the LEAD FUCKING AUTHOR on IPCC AR5 paleoclimate section.

Climate scientists absolutely know this already, it's not even a conspiracy. Local Antarctic Temperature does lead CO2 during the last deglaciation. There's nothing special or groundbreaking about such ideas.

Can you stop LARPing please?

is over there, it's getting embarassing

For fuck's sake, don't send the /pol/-nuts to Veeky Forums.
What did Veeky Forums ever do to you?

youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc
this videos really changed the way i think and understand global warming.
a must watch.

youtube.com/watch?v=ox5hbkg34Ow

thanks for that propaganda shot. i really needed something to reinforce my faith

>Stefan Molyneux
>a must watch.
Fuck off.

No I believe in all mainstream physics and falsifiable sciences. Even some non-falsifiable ones like Evolution, just because it's reasonable.

Wait...what base level is that? You just stroke a line between the graph.

>evolution is unfalsifiable
You're retarded

Go back to /pol/

Can someone please watch this video and give me a refutation of whatever they can? youtu.be/THg6vGGRpvA

wottsupwiththat.com/2011/05/20/pat-frank-the-new-science-of-climate-change/

Thanks, good to know but I think this post doesn't address his claims in this video. IIRC his claim is that the research presents the range of different results that the simulations produce as the uncertainty range of the future temperatures. But if you try to do error propagation through a model of what those simulations do, then the resulting uncertainty range is so wide that predictions become meaningless. I think his compaint in this video is that researchers do not present an uncertainty range based on error propagation but instead only show the range in which the simulated temperatures fall into when the simulation is run multiple times IIRC.

Been some time since I watched the whole thing and I have not seen any other related videos so you may need to watch this yourself instead if reading my interpretation. I know it's long...

Watching the video, Frank's "error propagation" is simply nonsense because it assumes that error at some point in time will increase linearly *by multiples of the current error*. If my watch is off by one minute today this does not mean that it will be off by two minutes tomorrow. My watch has been slowly accumulating error to be one minute off. That one minute is not the error rate.

The guy made a stupid model of error propagation that has nothing to do with real models. Par for the course in the denier echo chamber.

>non-falsifiable ones like Evolution
ur a faget

There's an article about scientific qualms in the theory of Evolution in the BCIM journal (article just came out), so to solve it they added the much needed neutral null. If something has a neutral null, it's falsifiable in some ways (more than before), but really isn't.

Before the neutral null hypothesis of evolution everything would be "because of evolution". This animal hasn't evolved in 100m years? Yeah that's because of evolution. This animal evolved last year "Yeah that's because of evolution". There is no null hypothesis, which prevents it from being falsifiable.

The fact that many people aren't aware of the philosophy of science (even scientists), allows just about any idea to cower under the facade of it.

And modern science is something specifically defined as something that uses the scientific method inspired by Sir Francis Bacon. Using that definition, ~The Theory of E V O L U T I O N~ falls under a grey area.

>cited
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5180405/

Why is his error propagation incorrect? He's doing error propagation for every step of the simulation. The model he is using is basically something the form ΔΤ(Τ)=a*T+b. And he managed to place this right between all the complex models. The propagation for his model seems correct, step by step the error accumulates. Are you saying that by being more complex the other models somehow don't propagate error the same way? I mean are you saying that he propagated the error incorrectly on his model or are you saying that it's not correct to assume that the more complex models are also propagating that error the same way as the simplified model?

Once again you are spouting nonsense.

The neutral null refers to neutral evolution, which is simply a change in the genetics of a population from random chance. "Neutral null" is not some special kind of null that is "falsifiable in some ways (more than before), but really isn't." The paper is not talking about falsifying evolution, it's talking about pan-adaptionism, which is an interpretation of evolution. The paper if anything implies evolution is falsifiable.

>Why is his error propagation incorrect?
I just explained why. He took the absolute error as the error rate when the two are clearly not the same. Read the post before replying to it.

>After watching this one video
>I have made a skeptical of myself
so you're like all the other skepticals

Wow why don't you read the paper dipshit.

>"In the decades since its introduction, the neutral theory of evolution has become central to the study of evolution at the molecular level, in part because it provides a way to make strong predictions that can be tested against actual data. The neutral theory holds that most variation at the molecular level does not affect fitness and, therefore, the evolutionary fate of genetic variation is best explained by stochastic processes. This theory also presents a framework for ongoing exploration of two areas of research: biased gene conversion, and the impact of effective population size on the effective neutrality of genetic variants."

The whole fucking point of the paper is to show that not everything is from evolution but rather stochastic faculties.

Really seems like Neutral theory was invented for the purpose of making evolution falsifiable.

I'm convinced Veeky Forums is full of ignoramuses suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect.

>citation

nature.com/scitable/topicpage/neutral-theory-the-null-hypothesis-of-molecular-839

>The whole fucking point of the paper is to show that not everything is from evolution but rather stochastic faculties.
Jesus Christ, you are legitimately retarded. You don't even know what evolution is. Evolution is genetic change in a population. It is not simply adaption or natural selection. You are confusing evolution with adaption, which is what the paper is explicitly saying you should not do. I mean come on, you are attempting to interpret a paper without even looking up the basic terminology being used, and you are attempting to pretend that you understand it.

OK let's take this step by step. The first ΔΤ is calculated linearly based on the initial T which has error. So the first ΔT has also got error that is some multiple of the starting error (it could even be smaller than the starting error). Do we agree so far?

Now to calculate T_100 you need to sum the starting T along with about 100 calculated ΔT. All those ΔΤs have error which is at least as big as the first ΔΤs error. He showed before that those errors are not random so summing those ΔΤ will not make the errors cancel out, and instead they will keep accumulating.

So based on the above the error rate is proportional to the absolute error which is what you object too.

To use your clock analogy: if your clock is 4 seconds off today and you clock has a randomly variable day length of 24 hours plus/minus 1 second, then in a year from now, your error will not be much different from today's error, because most daily errors will cancel out since they are random. But if your clock's errors are not really random, then you cannot assume that they will cancel out before better understanding the nature of that error.

Cult Leader Molyneux?
Fuck off

>The propagation for his model seems correct
It's correct but also a dramatic overestimation of the error. That method of error propagation gives you outer bounds of error but isn't the best measure available.

Evolutionary theory says one thing and one thing only: the frequency of heritable traits in a population can change.

Again you fail to respond to the point I actually made. You keep describing his methodology when I am saying he made an empirical error. Specifically, he assumes the absolute error at a certain point is the error rate, but the two are clearly different things. I don't get why you can't understand this since the watch analogy is simple enough. But so far you have not even accurately described how Frank came up with the error rate let alone defended it. So it seems you still haven't understood the post I originally made. Perhaps a video will be easier for you to digest?

youtu.be/rmTuPumcYkI

>Obviously global warming is real and it's happening and we are contributing to it,

THIS IS WHY IT IS OUT OF HAND. IDIOTS LIKE YOU PASSING IT OFF AS TRUE.

Take your meds and go back to

I think I am replying to your point but in any case the video is definitely helpful. I'm in the middle of it but I'll have to watch it couple more times to get everything. Thanks!

Can mods please do something about these samefags spamming the same shitty climate change bait threads every other day?

How is it the same thread?

It's kinda sad that this even needs to be pointed out to you. Look at the text, look at how the filename is the exact same filename (meaning posted by the same faggot).
It's the same guy almost every day making these bait threads just to argue. There's never anything productive about them because the guy that makes them is just doing it to argue, not actually discuss.

Wow he used the same image, the bastard, a whole 2 times!!!
And the threads are different.
Maybe try not to get your panties in a bunch next time, autismo maximus

>He
You mean you used the same filename (why else are you so defensive?)
>autismo maximus
I think you're projecting a little too much timmy, now go on back to and stay in your echo chamber please.

You're taking this Veeky Forums thing way too seriously. Get outside.

>There's an article about scientific qualms in the theory of Evolution in the BCIM journal (article just came out), so to solve it they added the much needed neutral null. If something has a neutral null, it's falsifiable in some ways (more than before), but really isn't.

One of the biggest hallmarks of a pseudoscience is its obsession with attacking the "flaws" in mainstream theories, since every attempt by them to create a coherent and logically consistent alternate theoretical framework turns into a huge disaster.

attacking flaws in mainstream theories is how the mainstream theories become stronger, user

The point is that classical Evolution isn't falsifiable. Neutral Null is more falsifiable but it's inherently subjective because it depends on phenotypes to differentiate random mutations; Thus agreeably more falsifiable but not as much as it can be

Except the paper neither says adaption is unfalsifiable nor evolution is unfalsifiable. Did you read it or are you relying on some creationist's interpretation of it?

>Neutral Null is more falsifiable but it's inherently subjective because it depends on phenotypes to differentiate random mutations;
The paper doesn't say anything close to this and its nonsense regardless. You don't need to compare phenotypes to see genetic mutations. Go spread your misinformation somewhere else.

No as I said before I believe in the ~theory~ of evolution. I'm just not delusional and recognize that it's not falsifiable.

And except it does, even to go as far as to compare neutral null to older evolutionary theory, which it goes as far as to call a fallacy.

From a better paper, in journal Nature, it even mentions that NOW evolution is falsifiable with the introduction of the neutral null.

>To claim adaptation, the neutral null has to be falsified. The adaptationist fallacy can be costly, inducing biologists to relentlessly seek function where there is none.

Since you're being excessively parsimonious, how do you falsify classical evolution? Give me a null hypothesis that would defeat evolution.

> the neutral theory of evolution has become central to the study of evolution at the molecular level, in part because it provides a way to make strong predictions that can be tested against actual data.

>cited

nature.com/scitable/topicpage/neutral-theory-the-null-hypothesis-of-molecular-839

How do you think adaptationist evolution is judged? It's all phenotypical by definition. It wouldn't be expressed otherwise.

Since you're a clear brainlet, please refer to:

>From a better paper, in journal Nature, it even mentions that NOW evolution is falsifiable with the introduction of the neutral null.

>To claim adaptation, the neutral null has to be falsified. The adaptationist fallacy can be costly, inducing biologists to relentlessly seek function where there is none.
That's not what the quote means though. Again where are you getting this from?

>Since you're being excessively parsimonious, how do you falsify classical evolution? Give me a null hypothesis that would defeat evolution.
Darwin himself stated that an feature which could not occur through incremental steps of adaption would falsify evolution. And in fact this is how many creationists attempt to disprove evolution. But they have so far failed to find such a feature.

Where are you retards coming from? The neutral null is the opposite of adaptionist. It is based in molecular biology.

kys

That's what i'm saying, if you read any of the posts...

No you weren't.

>Neutral Null is more falsifiable but it's inherently subjective because it depends on phenotypes to differentiate random mutations;

Just admit you have no idea what you're talking about and leave.

Why would I say More falsifiable? what am i comparing it too? You can't follow conversation for shit.

>To claim adaptation, the neutral null has to be falsified. The adaptationist fallacy can be costly, inducing biologists to relentlessly seek function where there is none.

^^^
That directly compares the two different theories.

Welp 7/10, clearly took the bait.

No it doesn't "compare" them. The neutral null can be tested purely genotypically via allele distribution and mutation rate. Again what you are arguing has no connection to what you are quoting. You don't understand what you're quoting. Nowhere does it argue that adaption or evolution is unfalsifiable, and no biologists claim such. You're grasping at straws.

Correlation doesn't imply causation, tard.

Not this crap again, when the data is tortured into a lag of about 200 years. However, it is not statistically impossible that the lab is 0 years.

That's it. A lag of about 200 years, with a small possibility of 0 years. AND NEVER does CO2 go up first.

You can now stop your ridiculous disinformation campaign.

>
>Not this crap again, when the data is tortured into a lag of about 200 years. However, it is not statistically impossible that the lab is 0 years.

Whoops, you did admit the 200 year lag. My bad.

Lol this guy is retarded. It literally says that. What is "more" comparing too. Tell us a null hypothesis for evolution too. Brainlet detected

You're a real brainlet, the inventor of modern science, Karl Popper has an essay specifically on Evolution not being falsifiable. Go ahead and read 'Criticism of Evolution'.

Wrong. Popper initially argued that survival of the fittest is unfalsifiable because it is tautological. Survival of the fittest is not the same thing as evolution or even natural selection (which is what Popper mistakenly called survival of the fittest). He then later changer his mind, presumably after this was explained to him by biologists:

"I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. . . ."

Perhaps you should do the same.

But it's good to see you are at least consistently gullible towards creationist fallacies as you are towards climate denialist fallacies.

holy shit, absolutely rekt

Please tell me you're not like the idiot here Not all positive feedbacks are exponential, but many (like the one in that post) certainly are.

Time and time again you continue to embarrass yourself.

You too for being equally parsimonious.

>WRONG.

I quote from Karl Popper directly "Evolution is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme."

In 1991, long after Karl Popper was forced to retract his criticism when asked about Evolution he said "One ought to look for alternatives!"

We are all still waiting for your null hypothesis of evolution. I will concede if you give me a null hypothesis which could disprove evolution if shown to be true. Will not be wasting my time on you any longer, I've seen similar Reddit assembled scientific philosophies bereft of not only original but all reasoning.

And to continue to comment on your failure of normal comprehension, I'm not a climate change denialist, but a AGW denialist. There is no question that climate has always been changing for at least the last 400,000 years. Further, I believe in evolution, but I'm sober enough to avoid the squalid fallacy of it being scientific.

You can actually prove that all positive feedback loops are exponential using a right triangular grid.

Out of curiosity could you find me a positive feedback loop that isn't an exponential or special case of one?

>I quote from Karl Popper directly "Evolution is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme."
This is a fake quote. Creationists switched the word "Darwinism" with "Evolution." And as I already showed you Popper recanted. Arguing based on a recanted opinion is dishonest.

>In 1991, long after Karl Popper was forced to retract his criticism when asked about Evolution he said "One ought to look for alternatives!"
So what? Evolution is still falsifiable. Whether or not Popper likes evolution is irrelevant.

>We are all still waiting for your null hypothesis of evolution.
You seem confused. Null hypothesis is only used in the context of statistical or correlative data. So null hypotheses are used in evolutionary biology to test certain theories, but there is no general null hypothesis of evolution.

Here are some examples: nyu.edu/projects/fitch/courses/evolution/html/null_hypotheses.html

>And to continue to comment on your failure of normal comprehension, I'm not a climate change denialist, but a AGW denialist.
Well I'm glad you admit you're a denialist but what "climate denialist" refers to is not "denial of climate" but your denial of climate science. It doesn't really matter what specifically you deny in climate science. A holocaust denier might accept certain parts of the holocaust and reject others, but he's still a holocaust denier.

Now please go away. Your constant barrage of fallacies is annoying.

>We are all still waiting for your null hypothesis of evolution.
Null hypothesis of evolution: the genetics of a population cannot change

Happy now?

The ocean's acidification and the fact the north pole is turning into a shipping lane, with Russia preparing for it for a good decade now and so will probably have unchallenged control for the foreseeable future, is proof enough for me.

>what is the null hypothesis of relativity?
>checkmate physicists!

>>WRONG.
who are you quoting?

The testable hypothesis was that light would warp around stars, the antithesis was the contrary. Get out of here brainlet.

Actually that proves evolution because the environmental conditions made genetic mutations undesirable (in the vernacular eerie personification).

Please find me an appropriate antithesis.

Sure if you want to make sweeping, generalized, and reductionist claims. Then I'm happy to be a "climate denialist"

>Actually that proves evolution because the environmental conditions made genetic mutations undesirable (in the vernacular eerie personification).
you're describing natural selection, not evolution. evolution is explicitly the CHANGE of populations over time.
there's actually a term for when a population isn't evolving (regardless of whether there is a selective force acting on it). it's called Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium
t. paleofag

((Weinberg)))

Nice try goy, now I don't have to respond to any of your arguments jew! Hahaha take that!

Agreed. Positive feed back grows something by a factor say delta which provides further positive feedback:

Thus feedback is on the order of (1 + delta)^n where n is the number of cycles of feedback; depends on the times the effect takes.

Of course (1 + delta)^n = Exp[n*ln(1+delta)]
which is exponential.

>Actually that proves evolution because the environmental conditions made genetic mutations undesirable (in the vernacular eerie personification).
The null hypothesis is "the genetics of a population *cannot* change" not "the genetics of a population *might not* change."

Also, the example you gave is antithetical to evolutionart theory since most mutations are silent and therefore cannot be selected against. A population whose environment made all mutations undesirable would indeed disprove evolution, since an alternative theory would be required to explain how the environment is acting on silent mutations.

So once again, you fail at reading comprehension and basic logic. Starting to see a pattern here?

False. Evolution is done by chance, there could be a mutation that allows organisms to put a lot of energy in RNA and die before RNA failure. Which may be selected against cancer deaths.

As usual you are a reductionist.

But as the Paleofag says, your "antithesis" is actually apart of evolution, like I claimed earlier it's an antithesis to a mechanism

>Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium

Ever heard of thermal expansion? Even if the volume of the ocean increases by 0.000000000001% coastal cities will be doomed.

>False. Evolution is done by chance, there could be a mutation that allows organisms to put a lot of energy in RNA and die before RNA failure.
That wouldn't be a silent mutation, dope.

How many times are you going to get BTFO in this thread?

>But as the Paleofag says, your "antithesis" is actually apart of evolution
Your inability to parse simple sentences is really quite amazing.

Again, the null hypothesis is "the genetics of a population *cannot* change" not "the genetics of a population *might not* change."

>Most mutations are silent and cannot be acted upon
>>Nuh uh, there's this one mutation that would be acted upon
You're really bad at arguing user.