>"99% of scientists around the world are being paid off to support the idea of global warming"
Why? Wouldn't it make more sense if politicians who deny climate change are the ones who are being paid off? I mean, there's not a lot of money to be made in reducing greenhouse emissions, at least not compared to the money to be made in ignoring environmental regulations.
Because Fox News and Trump told me so, you cuck.
>>74800950
It's not that they're being paid off or bribed directly, it's that it's simply in their self-interest to propagate that narrative.
Being that scientists accrue funding based on the validity of their field, global warming is a huge cash cow for climate science.
For a climate scientist to say it's a natural process would essentially be a confession that their position is largely useless, and they would see a good deal of funding dry up.
Saying the temp is going up isn't the same as saying New York would be underwater a decade ago
>>74801124
But that entire argument is seated in the idea that, again, 99% of scientists are more interested in furthering their career than doing actual science. That's extremely pessimistic, bordering on nonsensical
>>74800950
Science is the new Catholic church.
Once a theory is proposed by anyone of "credibility", there is a rush to produce studies with the same findings. Generally, null results are not published, and as someone who has been involved in this research, I can say without a doubt, virtually every study introduces some form of bias, and at any level where manipulation or "interpretation" can occur, it will occur, because it is in the interest of researchers, who survive off of funding. Don't find the results the funder wants? Someone else is taking over the lab.
So, we have a plethora of "theories" which are clearly broken, and fail to account for many aspects of reality. Think of these people funding research more as investors, paying researchers to propagate theory that will yield a return of investment.
>>74801124
This.
If you want to study squirrels and you need funding to do it (otherwise you are just a homeless bum looking at squirrels) then you need to phrase it correctly.
"A STUDY ON SQUIRRELS" = no funding.
"HOW GLOBAL WARMING IMPACTS SQUIRREL HABITS" = $$$ CHA-CHING $$$
>>74801307
Well, that's the other side of the issue.
The studies propagating the idea of total scientific consensus are entirely disingenuous.
There is nowhere near a 99% consensus. Several other studies have shown a much more nuanced view of the issue in the community.
I can provide sources if you're interested.
>>74801307
Unfortunately, it is the reality. These people invest decades into their careers, and being wrong about anything, instantly discredits the empire they've built. It is unfortunate, but a scientist is valued by the theory they propose, and will do everything they can to support that theory, even if it means ignoring aspects of reality and labeling them "mysteries". They just won't address details that do not fit their framework.
Maverick professor's won't make it very far, and I've seen legitimate power struggles leaving people careerless after small missteps.
>>74801318
>there is a rush to produce studies with the same findings
Yeah, that's calling being able to reproduce results. It's a sign that a theory has merit.
>So, we have a plethora of "theories" which are clearly broken
Any examples?
>>74801678
Yeah, that sounds interesting, I wanna take a look at them
>>74801706
>Yeah, that's calling being able to reproduce results.
If you've ever created your own research, you'd know you can basically find any result you want with subtle manipulation. Again, there should be an absolute equal ability to publish both positive, and negative results.
As for examples, theory regarding genetic causation for diseases that likely are gut flora related, are disgustingly common today.
Literally no one has has asked 99% of scientists.
>>74801307
Don't be stupid. The vast majority of Climate "Science" is modeling; which proves nothing; except building a "we're going to die" scenario. If the scenario fails, its ignored. Pic related.
http://www.cato.org/blog/climate-modeling-dominates-climate-science
Model works => Climate Change is True!
Model fails => Give us more money to build better models.
In all seriousness, you've got to get past this silly notion that someone called a "scientist" is always doing science. Especially science that represents a test of a theory. Most often they're modeling or looking at effects of a warming world. (Almost no one denies that the world has warmed in the past 50 years or so, the cause is what is debated.)
>>74800950
Upton Sinclair — 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'
>>74801791
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2014/02/david_friedman_14.html
This article contains excerpts from David Friedman's analysis, giving a digest version of a lengthier blog post (linked within)
It discredits John Cook of Skeptical Scientist's survey, one of the widely cited studies.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/#5ab311a1690d
The first page of this article not only discredits yet another consensus survey, but shows just how disingenuous they can be; specifically:
>So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.
>Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.
Page three cites several other surveys conducted which conclude a much more fractured scientific community.
>>74800950
In case you haven't noticed this board is full of ignorant retards and the world's edgiest teenagers.
>>74800950
>I mean, there's not a lot of money to be made in reducing greenhouse emissions
>He thinks there isn't massive amounts of money to be made on a new market of "carbon credits" to be forced upon literally every business on the planet
"Scientists" can't explain why Jews combust to piles of ash in only 20 minutes. We need to do more research.
You'll be back in the ovens soon enough, you lying kike.
>>74801466
/thread
>>74801466
>>74804323
No dipshit, that can go both ways. Not only that, do you really think oil companies, the world's biggest companies don't fund studies and media exposure that show them in a more positive light and green energy in a negative light?
I swear to god this board is naive as fuck.
>>74801307
>Extremely pessimistic, bordering on nonsensical.
The best description of life I've ever seen.
>>74801307
You're a such a retard. If it's their job through which they collect a salary? They'll just be content with unemployment because it's the right thing to do?
>pessimistic
Are you 12?
>>74806478
Minus that first A
