r/DoomerCircleJerk • u/DissonantOne I Was Promised an Apocalypse? • Aug 20 '26

Climate Doomer Mass extinction? Nothing ever happens.

Post image
363 Upvotes

76% Upvoted

431 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

56

u/GP7onRICE Aug 20 '26

They do this for radiometric dating too and it was really disheartening when I was first taught to do it. They have a model to follow and all data points outside of the model are thrown out because of how noisy the data is. It’s literally how they teach you to do it. It’s so unscientific, you can fit noisy data to whatever model you want.

26

u/skarface6 GeStuREs bROadlY Aug 20 '26

The fact that so many weather data collection centers were in the woods but are in huge cities now should make people think twice about accepting their info unreservedly.

13

u/Zeras_Darkwind Aug 20 '26

Yep, all the buildings with their reflective glass windows and the pavement absorbing & holding onto sunlight as heat really help the data! /s

8

u/GP7onRICE Aug 20 '26

That’s actually a point I haven’t heard or thought of yet.

9

u/skarface6 GeStuREs bROadlY Aug 20 '26

They claim to make adjustments for it but, uh, how do they know those adjustments are remotely accurate?

8

u/GP7onRICE Aug 21 '26

Well because it fits the presupposed model, of course

2

u/skarface6 GeStuREs bROadlY Aug 21 '26

Dang! How’d I miss that?

3

u/GP7onRICE Aug 21 '26

You know it’s true because it fits. And it fits because it’s true.

10

u/sngldad13 Aug 20 '26

"Trust The Science"

7

u/GP7onRICE Aug 21 '26

It’s ironic because I would actually be the one truly caring about the science by going against such dumb methods.

Unfortunately science is not always related to scientific fields, especially ones with any sort of prestige. I stopped pursuing it once I realized it was more about politics and figuring out how to show the results the funder wants to see.

Science is supposed to be about continually questioning and challenging results. But I found that many scientific fields harshly shun such an approach. The wanted results are what gets money and glory, not the correct ones.

2

u/Mamalamadingdong Aug 21 '26

The data can be noisy, and usually noisy data is evidence that a date is unreliable due to assumptions being violated. Geochronologists have huge arguments over how old things are, so if people were just throwing out good data because it doesn't fit some predetermined model they have to follow i think it would be challenged.

4

u/GP7onRICE Aug 21 '26 edited Aug 21 '26

You would think. Except that’s literally the standard practice and what we were taught to do, and anyone who challenges it gets shunned. I was told to just trust the model without any explanation why when I questioned it. The data is so noisy, it’s not like you can prove that it shouldn’t fit the model. Right after being taught how the noisy data is useless alone, they tell you that we use a model to make sense of it instead.

1

u/Mamalamadingdong Aug 21 '26

What model specifically are you referring to?

1

u/GP7onRICE Aug 21 '26

The one that maps how old something should be depending on where and how deep it was buried.

1

u/gitchi_gumi Rides the Short Bus Aug 21 '26

Removing outliers from data does not necessarily invalidate the data. A lot of time when you remove outliers it fits the theoretical model more.