Hey guys, I can post an incorrect cancer article... Does this mean cancer doesn't exist?
Hey guys, I can post an incorrect article on the mechanism behind tumor biopsies... Does this mean no one should ever get a cancer biopsy and testing done?
You look at a body of literature, not cherry-picked results. There have been literally thousands upon thousands of publications since your start point, and your handful of posts (most of which are not scientific articles but sensationalist bullshit) is supposed to prove something?
You can also avoid labs or people who make extreme predictions and focus on those with a long history of success and accurate predictions. And while we're on the subject of predictions, how about the fact that Exxon mobil and Shell both ran their own climate change studies (and remember they're about as biased as possible) and concluded that climate change was real.
Even more amazingly, their predicted CO2 and temperature shifts are right about on point today. Even better, they both buried the studies and only had it released 4 decades later through leaks (they came out a couple years ago). I don't really expect the OG to understand science or how articles and literature works though so no surprise here.
Not to mention, you were retarded enough to post real events that occurred but were PREVENTED by human action, e.g. the ozone. How the fuck are you going to claim the ozone was a hoax? Holy shit this site is retarded, between the anti-vaxx, anti-evolution, and anti-GMO sentiment, I guess this isn't even the worst demonstration of ignorance and misunderstanding. I agree scientists can be sensationalist and dip into exaggeration to push funding. Weaker labs fall into that behavior (particularly if speaking extomporaneously and not from a publication), but the body of evidence that humans are a major driver of temperature shifts is just ridiculous at this point, although once again, I'd be blown away if even a fucking FIFTH of the OG has ever actually sat down and downloaded a major review article on modeling and statistical efforts in deducing climate change.
this man gets it ...
No he really doesn't. Smoking increases your chance of cancer. Not smoking doesn't mean you still won't get cancer. What's being suggested is that if not for "A", "B" would never happen. That's simply not true and there is about 4.6 billion years of history that backs that up. Predicting trends successfully doesn't prove that the culprit is in fact "Climate Change" only that we are very successful at predicting B follows A.
Before you two go crazy on me, I'm not a climate change denier. I believe in a lot of the same principals, I am just not going to make extrodinary claims without the evidence to back them up. If you want to claim that fossil fuels don't help, I'm on board. Just like smoking doesn't help not get cancer. We should curb our fossil fuels but not just because of climate change.
We need to stop dividing ourselves into these groups. We need to find things we agree on and work from there.
You missed my point entirely. The point I'm makings is how fundamentally flawed the OG's interpretation of science as a singular and mobolithic entity is. The amount of times I've seen someone post, look X exaggerated results or can't be replicated so ALL THE RESEARCH IN THAT FIELD IS WRONG...
Well guess what? Pre-clinical oncogenic trials can have replicability rates in the thirties and there have been fraud cases in virtually every area of science (or any field) because surprise surprise, people are shit and need careful oversight (there are also very significant barriers to overcoming bias and poor statistical methods when working across silo'ed resesrch groups but that's a whole other can of worms).
You're also horrifically misinterpeting my argument. I'm not saying humans are 100 percent responsible for climate change. Virtually no one is. In fact I've argued time and time again on the OG that there is nuance and shades of dissent in the field, both with timing and degree of variability contributed by humans. In fact I had posted a thread literally called shades of dissent with a series of against-the-grain, c9nservative climate estimates to show that there is disagreement on the matter, but disagreement over the degree and not whether it exists or whether humans have ANY influence.
Ironically, if humans have even a middling impact, then the best way to buy us time while we figure out better tech is through environmental policies that delay the current shift we're experiencing. I'm sorry, but you completely misunderstood my point snd then mischaracterized my argument by implying I was suggesting an all or nothing situation.
Edit: I made my first sentence a bit less cunty/faggy.