Why does /pol/ always disagree with scientists?
/pol/ says: Climate change is not real.
Science says: Climate change IS real.
/pol/ says: There are multiple races.
Science says: Race is a social construct that was invented during colonization. We are all one race, the human race.
/pol/ says: Ancient Egyptians were white.
Science says: Ancient Egyptians were people of color.
>/pol/ is a single entity
When will this meme die?
>>80360541
>Finshit
Shit tier posting tbqh
>>80360541
>Science says: Race is a social construct that was invented during colonization. We are all one race, the human race.
I thought scientists were actually divided on that one?
Why say human race? Race implies there are others races if beings but there isn't. They don't say DOG RACES when talking about separate breeds or a singular species
>>80360541
>posting a map without a key
Fuck off, you Finnish cunt.
>>80360582
>not understanding consensus
>>80360541
>Science says: Race is a social construct that was invented during colonization. We are all one race, the human race.
>Science says: Ancient Egyptians were people of color.
tumblr=science now?
>>80360541
>Climate change is not real.
Climate changes all the time. The issue is: do humans cause that particular change that is going on right now.
>Science says: Race is a social construct that was invented during colonization.
A lot of scientists disagree
>Science says: Ancient Egyptians were people of color.
Find one who says so. Also how could they be if race isn't real? :^)
Overall a low energy bait.
>>80360541
>science is one person and is always right
>>80360541
>/pol/ says: There are multiple races.
>Science says: Race is a social construct that was invented during colonization.
Not a logical contradiction.
>We are all one race, the human race.
Depends if you think humans are primates or an entirely different species, there are differing opinions on this.
>/pol/ says: Ancient Egyptians were white.
>Science says: Ancient Egyptians were people of color.
/pol/ doesn't give a shit about Egyptians, also person of color can really mean anything.
You are welcome
>>80360917
Are you mentally challenged?
1. Read the filename.
2. Recall what you were taught back in history class.
>>80360541
I dig it mang. Leaving the punchline to the very last second. Let hem nibble on the bait, and then right when they think you just might be talking sense, HOOK EM!
>>80360541
SCIENTISTS ARE FUCKING LIARS, they will do "literally" anything for grant money to keep them in fleecy cardigans and well stocked with multi coloured biro's and pocket protectors. They stooge for governments all the time to the point where the average person actually truly believes they live on a globe spinning through space. Liars.
>>80360541
>Science says: Race is a social construct
Social science is not real science, their personal opinions are worthless.
Scientists: WE WUZ KINGS AND SHEIT
rly make u think
>>80360541
Damn op, how'd you get so much shit into your post?
>>80360541
>Race is a social construct that was invented during colonization. We are all one race, the human race.
Well science told me that Homo sapien sapien is a specie not a race
Who should I trust?
>>80361147
If we are great apes then we can be compared to our closest animal relatives, the chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas.
Many of which live in smaller geographical areas than humans do but are divided into separate species. For example, there are two different types of orangutans.
>>80362102
Those apes have hair and beards.
I actually kind of see the right one being wise.
>>80360541
Why do climate scientists always disagree with the scientific method?
Climate scientists say: Climate change is real god damn your eyes!!!!
Scientific method says: The present evidence for climate change is disputed and inadequate to form a general consensus from both sides of the argument.
>>80360582
If you can't tell that this board has a general philosophy and collection of views to it, you probably have autism.
It's clearly one of the more circlejerky places on the internet.
>>80360541
Also i'll never get this
>Ancient Egyptians were people of color.
>black people:
>black hair
>black eyes
>black lips
>black skin
>white people:
>bright hair (red, blond, light brown)
>eyes blue or green
>pink lips
>white skin
>black are people of color
>>80362230
>~97% isn't a consensus
>>80360541
(You)
>>80360541
Think of it like this, the scientists are government funded which means they spread whatever propaganda the government pays them to spread.
They're essentialy the new theocracy class, people will listen to them like they listened to the priests of the catholic church in the old days.
Because /pol/ is full of edgy teens who believe in conspiracy theories to be contrarian and think clickbait Youtube videos tell the "truth"
>>80360541
>Science says: Climate change IS real.
Oy vey, global CO2 taxation pleas.
>>80362302
>Implying a consensus means they're correct
>>80360541
That's not the real question. The real question is why /pol/ is always right?
>>80362691
Here's what I don't get.
Regardless of whether it is real or not, (it is) people would still suggest a carbon tax as a solution.
>>80362593
This.
>>80360541
>Science says: Climate change IS real.
Governments say climate change is real. Governments gain more power and moneys through claiming climate change is real. Scientists are funded by governments. Scientists who say climate change is real get more grant moneys. Scientists who come to more alarmist conclusions get even more money than those who come to less alarmist conclusions. Scientists who say climate change isn't anthropogenic or is but isn't such a great threat/isn't best solved by socialism and more government get less moneys and get harassed by SJWs and the government funded alarmist establishment.
>Science says: Race is a social construct that was invented during colonization. We are all one race, the human race.
Science does not and has never said this. Social 'scientists' sure, pozzed anthropologists sure - neither of these are serious discplines.
Science isn't in any doubt that racial differences exist - otherwise the fields of medicine, genetics, forensics, archaeology would be very different. If you're a medical scientist race is relevant. If you're a clinician race is relevant. If you're involved in criminal forensics, race is relevant.
>/pol/ says: Ancient Egyptians were white.
>Science says: Ancient Egyptians were people of color.
SJWs say: Ancient Egyptians were black.
/pol/ says: Ancient Egyptians weren't black.
'Science' says: Ancient Egyptians weren't black.
>>80362786
Yes that is exactly what I'm implying. I'm implying that 97% of scientists in a field agreeing on a topic makes them more correct than you on that topic when you oppose their conclusion. Yes random guy on 4chan, scientists are more respected than you.
>>80362285
Yeah. Always amusing to point this out and then have some midwitted tool scream about 'Africans being more genetically diverse!' because they don't know the difference between genotype and phenotype.
>>80360541
>/pol/ says: Climate change is not real.
Science says: Climate change IS real.
The question is why it happens. Remember that egypt was not always a dessert, and we still life in an ice age. Ice age is defined by having constantly ice on earth.
>There are multiple races.
Science says: Race is a social construct that was invented during colonization. We are all one race, the human race.
It is only said by feminists and sjw, i domt care if we are actually the same race on biological view, Niggas still have dumb society and are different with their body.
>>80360815
It's commonsense that race is a social construct. Same as language or our classification of animals. The universe did not write it down on a slate and make race.
>>80363343
>It's commonsense that race is a social construct.
So an Australian Aboriginal, a Japanese, an Ashkenazi Jew, an uncontacted tribesman from a Brazilian jungle, a Pygmy and a Scandinavian have no genetic differences? They will all be equally prone to the same medical conditions? They will all have exactly the same physiology, immune system and skeletal structure? The differences between them are purely down to the society in which they were raised?
>>80363234
Your deference to authority pleases your overlords. I'm sure morons like you were smugly agreeing with the "consensus" when people began suggesting the world wasn't flat, or that evolution occurs by natural selection, or the many other discoveries which have completely destroyed the established methods of thinking throughout the centuries
>>80360541
Dogs have several sub species, so do humans. Different sub species of dogs can interbreed. Sometimes there's good results, sometimes you get a retarded little shit of a dog.
The idea that we are all one race is to promote unity. That's not a bad thing, I want my kids to grow up in a peaceful society. Don't act like science doesn't ever skew facts to make their studies more valid.
>>80363615
>calls me a moron for understanding science
>claims science claimed the earth was flat and that evolution doesn't happen by natural selection
This board might as well be satire. You are a complete moron and have no idea what you're talking about.
>>80363234
>I'm implying that 97% of scientists in a field agreeing on a topic makes them more correct than you on that topic when you oppose their conclusion.
Yup. Because a consensus is always right. Once a consensus has been reached it can never be legitimately challenged or changed.
Remind me how the decades long overwhelming consensus amongst doctors and nutritionists that 'fat' was the root cause of obesity and various diseases is holding up these days.
Of course there's absolutely no chance that the supposed consensus on climate science (and the 97% figure always thrown about was reached by including huge numbers of compliant non-scientists) might in any way be influenced by politics. Just as there was absolutely no chance that big-agriculture and junk food/soft drinks manufacturers could possibly influence the (now debunked) consensus that fat-bad, shitloads of processed carbs=better.
>>80360541
Firstly
>/pol/ is one person
Now let's redo what you just did
/pol/ says: Lots of things both for and against climate change
Science says: Lots of things about the accuracy of the models regarding climatic change
Politicians say: Climate change is real
/pol/ says: Lots of things about race
Science says: Nothing about race because it's a touchy issue and a bad idea to get involved
A certain type of politician says: Race is a social construct that was invented during colonization. We are all one race, the human race.
Now I'm going to interject here about your bullshit claim that "race was invented during colonisation". We have records of ethnic cleansing taking place back into babylonian times, we have egyptian dynasties banning entry into southern egypt for people of dark skin from nubia (now ethiopia), we have the maori happily committing genocide against the mori-ori. The notion that race or racism is exclusive to white people, or to colonisation is utterly bullshit. Humans have done their level best to wipe each other out for any reason wherever they've been.
/pol/ says: Lots of things about the "race" of the ancient egyptians
Science says: The ancient egyptians were located between the ancient semitic peoples and the east african peoples, there is no consensus as to the "race" of the ancient egyptians by modern standard, but the closest equivalent is probably the copts, though they more than likely have quite a bit of greek and roman influence. We can state that the egyptians considered themselves racially distinct from their southern and eastern neighbours. What this is in terms of the utterly amerocentric notion of "people of colour" is just as nebulous as to why asians dont seem to count as people of colour by most american definitions.
(Honestly, the double think required for at one level to claim that race doesnt exist in a scientific sense then in your next point to claim that science identifies race is remarkable)
>>80362302
>still believing this meme
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTTaXqVEGkU
>>80361251
>filename is an adequate substitute for a map key
No.
>>80363888
>green energy is more of a corrupting force than oil giants
>oil companies haven't known about climate change for decades
>((((scientists))))
((((Scientists)))) always say homosexuality is not a mental illness.
>>80363919
Look up the study yourself fuckass, I'm not watching every retarded youtube video that a /pol/smoker spams when they're too stupid to explain something themselves.
>>80364007
Tell me, what criteria for mental illness does homosexuality fit?
>>80360541
>man made climate change
>race in this context refers to the measurable and observable differences between ethnic groups, which are fact
>who gives a shit about that?
>>80363604
You have not refuted anything I said. Just elaborated on a part of it. Get your head out of your ass and stop pushing your agenda. The liberals are right on this one. Race is a categorisation. The differences between the categories are irrelevant to its nature as a human construct. If I were to classify everyone according to the first letter of the country they were born in, this would not make it somehow objective if some of these groups were taller than the others.
And no, they don't have genetic differences, they have different allele frequencies.
Race is not science. It is not a theory that has a verifiable hypothesis. And I say "theory", as in making whether it's been experimentally verified optional.
>>80360815
>>80363343
From (((Wikipedia)))
>Since the later 20th century, scientific racism has been criticized as obsolete and has historically been used to support or validate racist world-views, based upon belief in the existence and significance of racial categories and a hierarchy of superior and inferior races.
>After the end of the Second World War, scientific racism in theory and action was formally denounced, especially in UNESCO's early antiracist statement "The Race Question" (1950): "The biological fact of race and the myth of 'race' should be distinguished. For all practical social purposes 'race' is not so much a biological phenomenon as a social myth. The myth of 'race' has created an enormous amount of human and social damage. In recent years, it has taken a heavy toll in human lives, and caused untold suffering."
To clarify: That there are different races of human beings is a biological fact, one that is purposefully formally denounced to stop people from being racist and thus promote harmony between races.
Of course all that supposed social harmony fucked up horribly when groups of angry niggers started using race as a factor in their attempts to play off of identity politics for personal gain.
>>80360541
It is because /pol/ is mostly made of north american teenagers/young 20's that think that if you subscribe to a certain set of values or ideology ( conservativism ) you automatically need to accept everything that is against your viewpoint or borderline retarded as well.
That is why you get so many christian threads or global warming is a hoax ones.
>>80362250
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
>>80361468
NEET detected
>>80360541
by "Science" you mean "Liberal media", right?
>>80363962
>green energy is more of a corrupting force than oil giants
>oil companies haven't known about climate change for decades
Congrats on an irrelevant post/attempted strawman. I pointed out that politics is the major corrupting force.
Being in favour of 'climate change is 100% anthropogenic so the government needs more powers and taxes' is far more appealing to a politician, and grants them far more power, than saying "climate change isn't necessarily anthropogenic, nothing we can realistically do about it so no need for me or the wider government to have more power of money.'
Politicians gain from pushing climate alarmism - more money, enlarged government, more power to 'justifiably' interfere in peoples lives - while gaining nothing from being skeptical.
Scientists gain from appealing to what their funders (politicians) want so they stand to gain more from pushing climate alarmism than they do from being skeptical.
>>80364226
I'm aware of the psych 101 concept. This is not confirmation bias. Look at any thread in the catalog and realize that the vast majority of people here have the same opinions and are simply reinforcing eachother.
>>80360541
>dogs are all one race, the canine race
stop claiming to know what "science says", you uneducated retarded faggot
>>80364344
Lol you paranoid schizo, not every scientist is funded by a government, not all governments have the same agendas and if it is real, they would be suggesting these fixes. It just happens to align with your paranoid psychotic thinking.
Anthropogenic climate change is real and Exxon Mobil knew in the 70's along with other oil giants, then began a disinformation campaign. This is on paper.
>>80363604
yes.
>>80360541
>thinks OLR is an accurate climate model
Stop reading popsci and open up a textbook
>>80364556
but dogs ARE one race, "breed" is just a social contruct as well bigot.
>>80360541
>/pol/ says: Climate change is not real.
>Science says: Climate change IS real.
Nobody denies that the climate is changing. The question that hasn't been answered is to what extent human activity has influenced the current cycle.
/pol/ says: There are multiple races.
Science says: Race is a social construct that was invented during colonization. We are all one race, the human race.
The stance that there is no race is itself a social construct, brought about to bring false equality to the different races of humans. In the animal kingdom, species and subspecies are distinguished by much more subtle phenotypical differences than are present in humans.
/pol/ says: Ancient Egyptians were white.
Science says: Ancient Egyptians were people of color.
Nobody claims ancient eqyptians were white - simply that they weren't black.
>>80364024
>believing a debunked study
>ignoring evidence to the contrary
Sounds about right
>>80363761
He called you a moron because you accepted something because of the authority of the people proposing it. You aren't sceptical of it. They aren't correct because they're scientists.
>>claims science claimed the earth was flat and that evolution doesn't happen by natural selection
>missing the point this much
The point is that scientists have been wrong many times before. Defending your beliefs by an appeal to authority is exactly what flat earthers did.
>God said so!
>>80364150
>You have not refuted anything I said.
Yes, I have. But feel free to leave your head firmly up ass.
>If I were to classify everyone according to the first letter of the country they were born in, this would not make it somehow objective if some of these groups were taller than the others.
You're right - that would be retarded. Also a completely irrelevant anology.
>Race is not science.
Again, geneticists, medics, archaeologists, forensic scientists etc say otherwise.
>And no, they don't have genetic differences, they have different allele frequencies.
Lols. So they have genetic differences. I suppose we could go full epigenetics/lamarckian and claim that the great apes are all one species due to the miniscule difference in terms of genome - and that the major differences are due to differing allele expression while we're at it. People of different races can be distinguished by physiology, anatomy, immune system and various other factors. Race exists and thankfully the serious sciences don't pretend otherwise - although they obviously hum and haw about the issue so that they don't get lynched by the SJW social sciences mob.
>>80363888
What you're forgetting is that people who challenge a commonly held consensus are generally expected to bring powerful evidence to back up their claim.
If you lack this evidence, let's face it, you're just a crazy alt-right conspiracy nerd.
Tell the no race bit to coroners. They can distinguish race by bone structure during an autopsy
>>80364727
>>80364782
>He called you a moron because you accepted something because of the authority of the people proposing it.
>listening to an authority figure on a topic is somehow bad
I also understand the concepts.
Scientists never said the Earth was flat and you don't even understand evolution. If you have a good way to challenge and authority on a topic, you better have a good point. You don't.
>>80364865
The 97% number refers to how many scientists agree the climate is changing, not ti what degree man is changing it.
Youd have to be an absolute nutjob to believe the climate never changes
>>80364727
dogs are not one race, they are one species
>bigot
I am getting rused here, it seems
>>80364565
>not every scientist is funded by a government
No, just the overwhelming majority across all disciplines and even even larger majority in climate 'science'.
>not all governments have the same agendas
When it comes to power ALL governments do have the same agenda - which is government power.
>It just happens to align with your paranoid psychotic thinking.
No, the supposed consensus just aligns with your ideology - which shouldn't too hard.
>Justification for greater government power? Check.
>Justification for greater state control of the economy? Check.
>Fulfills millenarian "it's up to us to save the world - everyone who disagrees is EVIL!" worldview? Check.
Climate alarmism is the ideal meme for those who in previous years would have been open communists. But now that communism has failed and it's evils are undeniable the whole climate change shtick lets people push for the same bullshit while trying to claim the moral highground.
If man evolved from apes then why are there still apes????
SCIENCE BTFO
CHRISTIANS: 1
BUTTMAD ATHEISTS: 0
>>80360847
Scientifically, modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens), is one specie. There is no subspecies. I.e there is only humans, no such thing as race.
>>80365125
So in your mind, over 100 years of global industrial activity has not had any effect on our atmosphere that is as thin as saran wrap on a bowling ball.
You realize our planet looks like Coruscant at night right? This is very easy to understand. Our output and activity has altered our climate.
>>80365125
Thats just tin-foil hat tier "muh evil gubberment" conjecture.
Present your studies that challenge the scientific consensus or shut up about it
>>80360541
>climate change
no one said this wasn't real, only that its isnt specifically only humans causing it nor as major a problem as many say it is. even many scientists think this.
>Race
this is clear bait and wrong. many scientists think race does exist, and in either regard the specific word 'race' was created during russias communist revolution, to which any scientist that tries to blame colonialism for its existence is not trustworthy anyways.
>egypt was white
no one said this, only that Egyptians werent black, to which there is plenty of evidence of this. egyptians also interbreeded with whites alot and had white rulers, this is different then the majority of the population being white though.
>>80365203
That's because we're less genetically different as a whole race than are a dozen apes.
Still shouldn't mean that niggers should be their own race because they're black and their average IQ is 75, while African Americans have an IQ of 85
>>80364865
>What you're forgetting is that people who challenge a commonly held consensus are generally expected to bring powerful evidence to back up their claim.
Which doesn't make much difference if the establishment is set against it. The evidence had always pointed overwhelmingly to fat =/=bad and high amounts of processed carbs=very bad but this didn't stop the FDA and various other government bodies pushing disastrous nutritional advice for decades with the result that obesity and diabetes (and other complications) are now absolutely rampant in the West.
Hell the consensus before this was actually the one we are finally returning to over the last couple of years which is that low carb, highish fat diet is superior to high carb, low fat diet but this consensus was completely overturned in the 60s/70s DESPITE the overwhelming evidence.
>>80365203
bone structure begs to differ. We literally have a different build depending where you are from (sub-Saharan, Mediterranean, Northern European, Slavic, Asian, Aboriginal) There is no black, white, red, etc but there is distinct differences based on where your ancestors are from
>>80365203
Now why do you suppose that is? Do you think it's because there aren't significant genetic and phenetic differences between human races (when all evidence has proven otherwise), or do you suppose it might be because any scientist that proposes classifying the various races as different subspecies would be lynched?
>>80365304
>artificial lights change the climate
wew
>>80365076
>Youd have to be an absolute nutjob to believe the climate never changes
Don't think I've ever heard of someone who claimed the climate never changes. This is simply a strawman pushed by alarmists. The argument isn't over "is climate change a thing" but "to what extent is climate change anthropogenic and is socialism the best way to deal with it".
>>80365569
You totally missed the point, not surprising.
>>80360541
Listen here you little shit, climate cycles are natural and since the dawn of time aka climate change, man made global warming however is pretty much bullshit
>>80360541
Science has been subverted by a progressive political agenda.
>>80365304
>So in your mind, over 100 years of global industrial activity has not had any effect on our atmosphere that is as thin as saran wrap on a bowling ball.
An irrelevant assertion and not one you could possibly justify using anything I've said. I've pointed out that the supposed overwhelming 'consensus' on Climate Science is one that can legitimately be disputed and also distrusted given the nature of government and the funding of these scientists by government. That's all.
>>80360815
It is common sense that two groups of hominids, living in distinctly different environments for thousands of generations could not possibly have evolved in the same way, and at the same rate. What natural process could have made them develop in the same way, despite different environments? Only could have happened through some sort of magic. And there is no such thing as magic.
>>80365624
Explain the ice ages. How did they come about?
>>80360815
>>80361102
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_human
>>80365372
i should also note it is a known fact that now-a-days many scientists are pressured into publishing half baked and researched data and papers as the stress placed to actually publish something is high.
>>80360541
[spoiler] Testing [/spoiler]
>>80366050
[spoiler] 1,2,3 [spoiler]
>>80365874
Sounds like you're paranoid and irrational honestly. Imagine it was true, (it is) how would it manifest differently? You're just not going to trust what scientists say because you think everyone is conspiring against you? Take your meds.
>>80365909
Cycles in Earth's orbit around the sun, not what we're experiencing. There is natural climate change which has causes, this is man made.
>>80360541
> science says race is a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT
NO douche, tumblr says that.
Science makes many distinctions on racial lines. Otherwise IQ/race wouldn't be posted here hourly.
Sage for stupidity
>>80365344
>Thats just tin-foil hat tier "muh evil gubberment" conjecture.
No, it's me pointing out the fucking obvious. A government will pursue policies that are good for the government. Bodies funded by the government will pursue policies which ensure they continue to be funded by the government or which will see them gain more funding from the government. This doesn't mean climate change isn't real or that it isn't largely anthropogenic - it simply means that these "Muh 97% of all scientists in history ever agreed with me!" arguments should naturally be approached with skepticism and criticism.
>Present your studies that challenge the scientific consensus or shut up about it
Try reading what I've said instead of fantasising whatever strawman argument you wish I'd posted. I've pointed out that it's perfectly rational to expect climate scientists, and the governments that fund them, to be affected by human nature and that is' obviously a rational position to be skeptical of any claims they make which are self serving. I'm not disputing that there's a consensus - I'm pointing out it's perfectly rational to question any consensus and particularly when that consensus is so clearly in the personal interests of those who maintain it and those who fund them.
>>80360582
/pol/ does overwhelmingly support Trump who is a climate change denier
Also
>>80365016
>>listening to an authority figure on a topic is somehow bad
>implying I implied that
You are touting the bullshit 97% statistic as if it validates you.
>I'm right because 97% of scientists agree with me
>I also understand the concepts
That's good.
>Scientists never said the Earth was flat
>implying I implied that
As >>80363615 said, it's about the consensus. He didn't say that "science claimed the earth was flat". Many people believed the Earth was flat. They had a consensus. Consensus doesn't make you right.
>you don't even understand evolution
Hahahaha
>>If you have a good way to challenge and authority on a topic, you better have a good point. You don't.
>he says while ignoring the video I posted
The best part is that I don't disagree that climate change is happening. You've built up an elaborate strawman, mate.
>>80361102
"People of color" and "white" are not races, they are skin colors, so you can definitely argue that Egyptians were colored while saying race is a social construct. Interestingly, a social construct that didn't exist at the time so Egyptians themselves and the people around them would never think of themselves in these terms.
>>80365431
>>80365502
>>80365563
See
>>80365957
We're all a part of the same subspecies of human actually. Unless a scientist would like to create sub-subspecies, and ignore all of the genetic and anatomic information contrary to decades and centuries of research.
>>80366376
the 97% consensus is on man made climate change, not on climate change in general.
>>80360541
Do you genuinely believe Arabs, Whites, Jews, and Chinese all have the same capability? If so congratulations, you didn't look at scientific data to understand your positions.
>>80360541
>Science says: Race is a social construct that was invented during colonization. We are all one race, the human race.
Not really. We just use the word race in a different way to mean ethnic groups, and that's something very much acknowledged as having real biological differences by scientists. They just don't call it race because that's incorrect depending on the definition of race. The difference is only in semantics.
>Science says: Ancient Egyptians were people of color.
No scientist says they were black, iirc the consensus is that they were quite similar to modern Egyptians.
>>80366096
>Sounds like you're paranoid and irrational honestly. Imagine it was true, (it is) how would it manifest differently? You're just not going to trust what scientists say because you think everyone is conspiring against you? Take your meds.
Sounds like you're either fabulously naive and ignorant of human nature and the way organisations operate, and bureaucracies expand, or that you're an obnoxious shitposter who's blindly in favour of an ideological POV and needs to resort to adolescant insults with every shitpost.
>You're just not going to trust what scientists say because you think everyone is conspiring against you?
Again, rather than engaging with anything I've actually said you're masturbating over what you wish I'd said. The consensus on Climate Change benefits governments, so pushing the consensus rather than being skeptical benefits scientists funded by those governments. It's not complicated. There is therefore plenty of reason to be skeptical over a consensus which - rather than being rooted in the beliefs of independent scientists who don't stand to gain from pushing it - is inherently beneficial for both those who push it and those who fund them.
Really isn't a complicated problem to grasp unless you've a shockingly poor understanding of human nature or are a close minded ideologue.
>>80366273
>This doesn't mean climate change isn't real or that it isn't largely anthropogenic - it simply means that these "Muh 97% of all scientists in history ever agreed with me!" arguments should naturally be approached with skepticism and criticism.
Fucking this.
However, if you question one aspect of climate change, you are labelled a "denier" by the overzealous climate alarmists
>>80366479
>the 97% consensus is bullshit
Also see above. I'm not denying man made climate change.
science says race is a social construct?
lol
no real scientist believes that shit
>>80360541
Science verse social bullshit?
So, real observable evidence verse made up falls ideas that change every year?
Do yuropoors really fall for social "sciences"?
>>80366662
>No scientist says they were black,
>iirc the consensus is that they were quite similar to modern Egyptians.
It's one or the other. They mostly were very similar in appearance to modern Egyptians despite the large Arab influx which resulted in the extinction of the ancient (proper) Egyptians - given they were both Semitic peoples.
The main reason Ancient Egyptians pop up in /pol/ is to laugh at the blatantly ridiculous claims by black supremacists that they were black, not that they were pure Aryan master race which they obviously weren't.
>>80364826
>yes, I have refuted what you said
Let me put this in clear terms. My statement is "race is a social construct, it is a categorisation of people." Your refutation was "there are differences between the categories of people." You have not refuted anything I said.
>geneticists, medics, archaeologists and forensic scientists would say otherwise
No they would not. They would know the very defintion of a scientific theory is a verifiable hypothesis that explains something. "Black people, white people, yellow people, brown people" is not a hypothesis. You could say "Black people have genes in them that make them more violent", that would be a verifiable hypothesis.
You should change your statement to "differences between races" exist. That's what you mean.
>>80360541
>Science says: Race is a social construct that was invented during colonization. We are all one race, the human race.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotype
>>80366748
>Fucking this.
>However, if you question one aspect of climate change, you are labelled a "denier" by the overzealous climate alarmists
Exactly. See any of numerous examples in this fucking thread. Point out that there are valid reasons to question a consensus which is blatantly self-serving and you get ideologues accusing you of being a 'climate change denier' and whining about government conspiracies.
There is no climate change conspiracy - but it does so happen that the consensus is extremely beneficial to those who push it at every level (be they scientist or politician) so it's perfectly rational to question the role of things like confirmation bias.
>>80360541
social "scientists" and needing grant money has given them a bad name. Shitty unreproducible papers hasn't helped. Alarmism without proof even more so.
>>80367082
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
>Because there are approximately three billion nucleotide base pairs in the haploid human genome, each pair of humans differs, on average, by two to three million base pairs.
A .1% genetic difference.
>Approximately 85−90% of genetic variation is found within these continental groups, and only an additional 10−15% of variation is found between them
>In other words, ~90% of total genetic variation would be found in a collection of individuals from a single continent, and only ~10% more variation would be found if the collection consisted of Europeans, Asians and Africans
You're more different from your next door neighbor than someone across the ocean.
Oh and at the end, the researchers revealed they were actually hoping for more genetic basis for the idea of "race".
>>80366910
egyptians were white fuck you, you are worst ally
>>80360541
>Science says: Race is a social construct that was invented during colonization. We are all one race, the human race.
if race isn't real, how can racism be real?
>>80367816
>A .1% genetic difference.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html
A Chimpanzee is only a 4% difference famalam. Considering Chimps are a whole different family of primate, I'd say .1% for the same species to be not so small.
>You're more different from your next door neighbor than someone across the ocean.
No, it's saying there's a 10% variation on top of the 90%, which means they're still more genetically different, just not by much. I'm willing to bet it's the defining characteristics that are within those 10-15%, like skin colour, cranium shape, brain size, build, behaviour, etc.
Even /g/ gets it
>>>/g/55488889
