181
Ancient sea sponges at centre of controversial claim world has already warmed by 1.7C
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2024
181 points (97.4% liked)
science
14767 readers
63 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
<--- rules currently under construction, see current pinned post.
2024-11-11
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That is absolutely antithetical to the scientific process. Nothing is considered 'fact' until rigorously proven. This is interesting evidence that absolutely warrants criticism.
Yea, why is it "one scientist said so despite their claim disputing the current standard! Fact now". This paper needs independent verification and follow up studies to confirm they didn't just massively fuck up their numbers or something else
you've obviously never read a scientific paper.. if you understood anything about science, you would see that this method of determining sea temperature changes produces a dataset that is much more reliable than the data we have been referring to..
One published paper is never sufficient to claim anything as fact. To suggest otherwise is purely ignorance.
He’s clearly trolling and arguing in bad faith.
that's exactly how science comes into existence.. one study and paper at a time.. whoever taught you otherwise was lying or stupid..
No is arguing otherwise.
One paper does not make a "fact". Years of established research and widespread consensus barely justifies labeling a subject as a "fact".
Have you already forgotten the room temperature superconductor claims from last year?
Let me be absolutely clear. I am in no way trying to discredit this paper. I see no reason to question their findings, it's good science and absolutely should be followed up on. However, I take strong exception to people jumping on any half decent study and treating it as gospel.
That's good it means this experiment should be easy to reproduce.
the scientific process is demonstrated in their paper.. if you can find fault in their methods, then there is controversy, otherwise their findings are fact.. "criticism" in science is done with research, not comments on the internet or to news outlets..
The scientific process requires repetition, ie "rigorous proving". One paper =\= "fact", even if no obvious fault can be found in the surface. And to be clear, the lack of repetition doesn't mean they're wrong, just that there's more to be done.
you're just making shit up, you have no idea what you're talking about
Holy fuck what a stupid response.
Here's some recommended reading, hope it helps: https://kids.kiddle.co/Hypothesis
We did it. We found the clearly non-scientist. I wouldn't claim a certainty 100 % on the papers I've published myself. There's always new research and one paper could only be looking at one very specific thing.
But overall: there is a climate crisis, there is no doubting that.
Ahh yes, the very scientific Ad Hominem method...
We‘re checking the idea of detecting llm usage on lemmy since the number of trolls seems to be steadily increasing. In case anyone with coding/dev experience is interested, lmk.
you go ahead and do your checking, little fella.. be sure and let me know what your code has to say..
i didn't say you were naturally stupid, just that you are using a stupid argument.. it's just a fact.. if you don't want me to point out the stupidity of your arguments, you shouldn't use stupid argumentation..
maybe you're a little defensive because you're full of shit
rif.org genius, you were never talking to me
And you do?