What's the present day equivalent of nonsense like miasma, flogiston or aether?

Climate change is a consequence, not a cause. Climate shifts exist and even climate change denialists don't try to deny historical shifts like ice ages. If you wanted to make a clever jab you should've suggested that CO2 emissions do not exist, but that doesn't sound very clever for obvious reasons.

...

Jesus

This.

For which claim?

Climate change sheep are in this thread already?

Must not be getting 18 inches of snow like I am tomorrow.

Climate change being a hoax

Everything. Correlation does not equal causation. This is simple statistics. Also doesn't help when climate change "scientists" alter data to make it more (((accurate))).

My dude. This is why they stopped flip-flopping between global warming and global cooling. They have now labeled seasons as a man-made disaster.

But no one said
>CLIMATE CHANGE IS DEFINITELY CAUSED BY HUMANS
Read the posts you quoted.

Then what is it caused by, duderino? Manatees? Penguins? What are these "scientists" blaming it on? Cow farts?

The entire politicized climate change theory is BUILT on the belief that it is man made.

Pay your carbon tax, goyim

What is dark matter even supposed to explain? Like, why do we care that it might exist?

Calculations or readings of some sort show that there's more mass in the universe than there should be, considering how much empty space there is compared to stars, planets, asteroids, etc. Whatever the fuck that mass is is dark matter.

"strings"

Biologist detected

These aren't nonsense, just models which have been superseded by more parsimonious explanations or explanations with a higher explanatory power. Anything in our current day science could have the same fate.

It's impossible to say until the theory is abandoned.

Shape and binding of galaxies make no sense if we apply the current gravitational models without dark matter, even accounting for stuff like clouds, rogue planets etc.
So either we change the models, or we assume there is more matter than we detect and would normally estimate. The former has met with mixed success and reception, so dark matter remains the go-to wildcard.

>"""""""""""""""""real""""""""""""""""" numbers

You are like a little baby. Watch this.

>imaginary numbers

How did this thread turn into climate change denialism what is wrong with this board

Doesn't Tillerson support carbon tax? Or is it (((Tillerson))) and (((Trump))) now?

Honestly, the only thing worse than climate change deniers are the ones that say "MUH THERE IS A DEBATE ON WHETHER HUMANS ARE THE CAUSE! CUZ I SEZ SO!"

There's no debate you dumb fuck, humans ARE the cause of the current temperature trend and CO2 is the culprit from HUMAN EMISSIONS. How fucking hard is it for a brainlet like yourself to understand that.

Climate change is nothing new you dumb fuck. The phrase has been in use for DECADES.

Literally go into Google Scholar and type in the terms climate change and global warming and set dates from the 18th century to ~1980s, tell me what results you see you dumb fuck.

Here's a great one for example, just to blow you the fuck out you retarded fuck, from 1975, the heyday of your supposed "global cooling" meme that deniers like to bring up all the time, from the National Academy of Sciences no less.

Here, read through it yourself:
archive.org/stream/understandingcli00unit#page/n5/mode/2up

"imaginary numbers"
"irrational numbers"
"negative numbers"
"evolution"

Oh and "round earthers / flat earth deniers"

...

>muh scientists

Bought and paid for. It's been done before, bud.

>he doesn't know that increased precipitation in temperate zones is a predicted outcome of global warming
>he thinks that more snow = more cold
what a brainlet

>Correlation does not equal causation. This is simple statistics.
>t. guy who's never taken a college level stats class in his life
it's reasonable to infer causality when you have control and a plausible mechanism. which we do.

invading hordes of /pol/acks erryday senpai
highly likely that OP only created the thread for that very purpose. (his inability to spell "phlogiston" is consistent with being a /pol/ack)

Because there's obviously a GLOBAL conspiracy corroborated by THOUSANDS of climate scientists across DECADES, who receive no more or no less funding if their results are positive or negative.

So much of their arguments seem to hinge on the idea that they would lose their funding if they weren't manufacturing a disaster. They would be fucking fine. The oil industry would be more than happy to provide the funding show that there's no actual problem going on.

Its fucking ridiculous.

>Magic is not new! The phrase has been used for hundreds of years!

See? I can make an argument out of a fallacy, too.

(((Plausible mechanism)))
There goes that subjective science again. You're finding data to support a hypothesis instead of the other way around.
>t. Middle school science class

Happened with tobacco, sugar, MSG, and margarine... so, it isn't as whAcKy!! As you think.

Remember when al goy... I mean gore, said the polar ice caps would be gone by 2014?

What happened?

Hilarious that you mention tobacco. FYI kiddo, many of those scientists that were on big tobacco's payroll are in the climate change denial business. Fred Singer is probably the most prominent of them.

Read some fucking literature. Literally all science is subjective. All that differs is how well various explanations work.

And no, nobody just "gathers data and comes to a hypothesis". Read some fucking popper and basic scientific philosophy. You start at the limitations of a theory and progressively attempt to falsify it. Climate scientists attempt to falsify their models every time they compare them against prior known data.
> middle school science classes are often wrong, who knew?

What you're referring to is "cherry picking". And there was no consensus on global cooling in the 1970's. There was, however, consensus about a brief cooling trend linked to an abnormal spike in aerosols in the atmosphere, however.

You mean, there was a consensus among scientists that they caused health problems and were bad, except for a very small number of industry-funded shills?

>one side can be bought. the other side (the one I agree with) is incorruptible

You're an idiot

Chaos magic, but desu it's just a way of putting working older principles in to a manner this age's scientific mind can accept and work with.

>all science is subjective

Stopped reading there.

Nice """argument""" you have there pal.

Here, do some reading, educate yourself.
ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/global-warming-skeptic.html
gci.uq.edu.au/brief-history-of-fossil-fuelled-climate-denial
theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/25/fossil-fuel-firms-are-still-bankrolling-climate-denial-lobby-groups
theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/exxon-mobil-gave-millions-climate-denying-lawmakers
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy
arstechnica.com/science/2015/07/i-rejoice-that-it-is-warm-ars-attends-a-climate-contrarian-conference/
af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFN1E75Q1ZO20110628?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true
nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=1
documentcloud.org/documents/2642410-Email-Chain-Happer-O-Keefe-and-Donors-Trust.html
conservativetransparency.org/recipient/competitive-enterprise-institute/
desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Fred Singer emails re Merchants of Doubt.pdf
insideclimatenews.org/news/12032015/leaked-email-reveals-whos-who-list-climate-denialists-merchants-of-doubt-oreskes-fred-singer-marc-morano-steve-milloy
exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41
exxonsecrets.org/html/index.php
scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donors_Trust

You fail to provide rebuttals every time you get called out, it's hilarious. Face it kiddo, you got nothing, you have no evidence, all you have is your cute little reactionary identity politics. Too bad that's not an argument! Dunning-Kruger in effect.

> one side can be bought
> the side is typically small and publishes shitty papers
> the side doesn't include the vast majority of scientists

>one side can be bought. the other side (the one I agree with) is incorruptible

It literally is. Science is subjective the same as any human enterprise.

You can take objective measurements. But what measurements you chose to take and the theory or hypothesis used to describe them are subjective creations.

No, its still not subjective like literature is fucking subjective, or "muh feels". But its not separated from humanity. Its always interpreted through human ideas. Science never provides absolute results - its always the best we have.

> Not saying the best we have isn't really fucking damn good.

>s-science was once paid for by someone I don't like
>therefore my opinion is correct

Liberal "science", everybody.

What is 1+1?

I just need a simple answer here. If you can't do it, write a letter to a first grade class. I know you can't go within 100 yards of them.

Free will

I ask again, provide evidence for your vast conspiracy that is conveniently vague. I'm still waiting, you going to read any of the links I dumped? I can always post more.

By the way, if you're interested in the connection between the tobacco industry and climate change, go ahead and read Merchants of Doubt. Better yet, since you're a brainlet, just watch the documentary:
youtube.com/watch?v=HD2zixRoBP8

Also PBS Frontline did a good piece on climate change denial:
youtube.com/watch?v=J8te6eAZSlc

Potholer54 also has a great web series on various aspects of climate change denial and responses to their shitty arguments:
youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP\

Your shitty argument relied on the tobacco industry as an example. What's HILARIOUS about this example is the same scientists that were bought and paid for by the Tobacco industry and bought and paid for by the climate change denial industry. How are you such a brainlet that you can't understand this?
By the way, is that way pal. Get back to the echo chamber before your fee fees get hurt ; ;

youtube.com/watch?v=uhykhXxjzGE

>b-big bad tobacco sponsored bad science! I know bcuz my edgy high school anti-tobacco class said so.
>cigarettes contain RAT POISON and JET FUEL. This is why Remy doesn't smoke in my favowit Disney movie :^)

Babby's first strawman, how cute.

Says the man who uses "Big Tobacco" as a punching bag in 2017.

D.A.R.E. is that way>>>

>u can't gather data to try and test a hypothesis
>u have to gather random data and then afterwards decide what you're going to try and test
not only is it standard methodological practice to come up with a hypothesis BEFORE you take your measurements (because how else are you supposed to know what to measure), what you are actually advocating is data snooping, a grave statistical sin. deciding what to measure based on the data you've gathered gives artificially high significance to your chosen metric, and will get your paper rejected by any reputable document.
t. grad student and actual researcher

this 100%

>Bought and paid for. It's been done before, bud.
>>s-science was once paid for by someone I don't like
>>therefore my opinion is correct
>Liberal "science", everybody.
the cognitive dissonance must be killing you right now. typical conservative hypocrisy.

Racism, anti-vax, anti-GMO, anti-nuclear, pilot wave theory, thinking CRISPR is going to give us designer babies, supersymmetry, believing we will leave the solar system

>you have to make the data match your hypothesis

VS

>you have to make your hypothesis match the data

Are you this retarded? Did you get a B.A. In climate science from DeVry or something?

2.

what are you, fucking stupid?

Can you not understand the philosophical distinction between formal sciences, such as mathematics, which are by definition a priori, and empirical sciences, which are by definition a posteriori, and thus subject to the limitations of knowledge of the external world?

Read a fucking book.

> I know its a troll but I can't stop.

Another strawman, you're turning into a scarecrow my friend. Still haven't refuted a single thing I've posted in this thread. It's quite adorable.

Notice how you have moved the goalposts from "scientists collaborated with big tobacco!" to "LOL stupid liberal believing that cigarette smoking is bad, XD dumb cuck! go to D.A.R.E XD"

Limitations of your knowledge a subjective science does not make.

Literally everything is objective. Everything. This is not up for debate. Stupid shit like this is how you get people identifying as "otherkin".

Coming from the man who moved goalposts from climate change to tobacco? Are you here with us, mentally?

All scientific evidence is correlative. The job of the scientist is to design experiments such that correlation is the only plausible explanation for observed correlation.

integrating over paths
integrating over fields
integrating over geometries
tqft
category theory

as you can see physics is most guilty of bullshittery, followed closely by memethematics

>causation is the only plausible explanation
fix'd

Still not subjective. All you are doing is collecting and compiling data from a bunch of points to a few paragraphs, in a manner of speaking. Still waiting on you to answer 1+1.

I MEAN COME ON IT'S [C U R R E N T Y E A R]!

Are you? Can you read or follow a conversation? First you mention that science can be corrupted, using the tobacco industry as an example. Then suddenly you shift the argument once you're losing to "lol liberals using big tobacco as an argument," despite you doing the exact same thing. Hypocrite.

I'm continually amazed at your shit responses and cognitive dissonance. Your mental gymnastics deserve at least the silver medal.

You realize I just walked into the thread, right?

I never once mentioned tobacco until you did, friendo. Maybe you can't read? Did you skip basic reading comprehension?

You mentioned it in Where did I mention it before that? Please point it out, specifically.

I predict your next card will be >I'm just pretending to be retarded!

You fail to recognize the distinction between having an external, objective world and having direct knowledge of the external, objective world.

Something still being essentially subjective doesn't mean we can't demonstrate why some hypothesis are better than others.

Oh let me guess, you will pretend you're not the same person even though it's an entire conversational chain.

>haha looks like you can't differentiate one Anonymous user for another

You responded, so I assumed. Didn't think anyone dumb enough to think I can tell who is who would respond. You proved me wrong, though.

...

Responded to a post from the ass end first third of the thread?

Think that through a second, it's really stupid.

>Gender theory/studies.
>

>ass end first third

English much? Can't wait until Trump puts you back South of the border.

see

Great, now that we have this nonsense settled, respond to the claims I made here:
and
You claim that climate science is corrupted, provide evidence. I've already provided a boatload of evidence showing how climate change denial is funded by the fossil fuel industry, and how it's entire purpose is to cast doubt and spread misinformation to the public. Care to actually provide a rebuttal, or are you just going to shitpost around the argument?

B.S. in geophys and B.A. in biosci from one of the top ten universities in the country, actually.

now read closely because I'm only going to explain this to you once:
you are presenting a false dichotomy based in your fundamental ignorance of how science works. you seem to think that the only options are to cherry-pick data to support a preconceived hypothesis, or to craft a data-snooped hypothesis to fit what you've already collected. BOTH of these are fraudulent.
fortunately, there's another way, which is how things are actually done in the sciences. first you formulate a hypothesis (possibly based on preliminary or previously collected data, but not to be evaluated using any of that data). and then you collect your data that RELATES to the hypothesis, without checking if individual measurements support or reject the hypothesis. and then, ONLY after you've completed your data collection, THEN do you perform your statistical tests to determine whether or not the data are consistent with the hypothesis.

attempting to force either the data to fit the hypothesis or the hypothesis to fit the data is serious misconduct. your belief that one or the other must be done is emblematic of the denier's style of thinking; because they put their opinions first and selectively shade the facts to support them, they project that approach onto others. and so because they themselves don't have a mindset capable of evenhanded investigatory research, they believe that actual scientists are equally dishonest and biased. it's kind of sad, honestly.

Except my argument never relied on the tobacco industry until you mentioned it. Don't be butthurt that you got two people confused. It's okay to make mistakes. Maybe mum will make you some nuggies after school today?

>Can't put uppercase letters at the beginning of sentences.
>B-but I got two degrees ;^)

Fucking swine. Didn't read any of that. You just wasted fifteen minutes of your life mashing on a keyboard for nothing.

By the way, here's another great article on the relationship between the tobacco industry's denial of the health effects of cigarette smoking and climate change denial. They use the same exact tactics.
scientificamerican.com/article/tobacco-and-oil-industries-used-same-researchers-to-sway-public1/
Again, I recommend watching merchants of doubt at the very least, or are you too afraid that it won't confirm your biases?

Nevermind. It's clear you're just here to strawman and ad hom over and over again, there's no point in engaging you since you're not going to provide any evidence for your claims. Bye now. I suggest as a better place for someone of your "intellect."

> because his entire argument rested on those typos

>muh ad hominem
>btw /pol/ is that way
>everyone who doesn't agree with me is a Nazi

Wow. I never thought that anyone could fail basic philosophy.

The thought of an autismo banging on his keyboard and making up credentials is funny to me.

>uh oh, can't refute any of that
>better be a grammer fascist
you don't deserve standard capitalization until you learn to support your claims with evidence :^)

>still doesn't use uppercase letters

Damn, son. I've never been so butthurt that I ignore all grammar and syntax rules. You have a lot of growing up to do.

> ad hominen
> defined as attacking your opponent.
> All he did was define his opponents arguments (strawman and ad hom) and resigned himself because there's clearly no point in fighting against straw man and ad homs.

> /pol/ is not scientifically rigorous
> user is not being scientifically rigorous
> directed to someplace where he can be unscientific without being judged.

> literally never said nazi

This was a poor analysis on your part.

Science is a social construct. Thus, every generation gets to change what they believe is correct.

I really wish it wasn't like that.

>didn't actually insult you in my opinion
>therefore not an ad hominem

QED, tard.

And look up /pol/'s symbol. What's that black symbol in the middle mean? I didn't do well in history class.

>still gets pooper peeved that he'd not getting the Capital Treatment
who's more rectum ravaged? the guy who doesn't put in the effort to properly capitalize his posts, or the guy throwing a fit about it in the comments?
I mean, hot damn. I've actually got the ass burgers, and this is way more autistic than I've ever contemplated.

>your next post will be "I was only pretending to care strongly about capitalization! I'm not upset!"

I'm actually not upset at all, kiddo. It just seems fishy that a double degree Master of science would ignore basic grammar. How many grants does that get you? I guess that pokes a big fat hole right in your theory huh? Back to the drawing board you go ;^)

> attacked the argument
> ad hominen

Something doesn't follow.

This man is stupid. Don't waste time talking to him.

>h-he's just dumb!

Now we're down to name-calling. Your anal anguish is complete, padawan. Rise, and become a SITH!