/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8939376
>getting this rustled over a picture from a manga

>>8774799
>when Trump said the murder rate was the highest it's been in 40 years, liberals tried to jump on that statement and accused him of lying. In reality, to most Americans it doesn't matter if that is literally true, what is important is that Americans are worried about rising crime after years of lawlessness under obama
the USA murder rate was literally lower in 2015 than it was in any year from 1965-2009; it's historically low. it was literally twice as high back in 1980.
>http://www.snopes.com/murder-rate-highest-in-47-years/
>inb4 a bunch of crying and sniveling about how Snopes is LIBRULS or something
of course, that didn't stop conservative media (Breitbart, FOX, Infowars etc.) from claiming that crime was skyrocketing. and people believed them, and thought that crime was rising even though it was just a change in how it was presented to them and how they perceived it.

what you're saying is that public opinion should shape reality rather than vice versa. you're applauding Orange Daddy for being just as indoctrinated and delusional as the people who voted for him. talk about the blind leading the blind.

>>8706775
no. an asymmetrical stretch (one bond contracts, the other bond expands) is IR active.

>>8706839
>how often is the structure asymmetrical
as has been mentioned many times in this thread alone, it has been experimentally verified over and over again that CO2 absorbs (and therefore emits) significantly in the infrared spectrum.

>>8670088
>nasa videos claiming that the earth is getting greener with more plant growth from increased c02 levels.
greening in the Arctic doesn't do any good (in terms of crop production or carbon sequestration) due to the poor soil quality. read >>8669843 again.

>it is wrong for the state to take away rights to justify
so if Uncle Sam tells me I'm not allowed to stretch flour with paint dust and sell it to consumers, MUH FREEDUMBS are being VIOLATED. and the obvious right way to handle that problem is to just let me sell the tainted flour, and make people I've poisoned sue me to try and get their medical bills paid.
This Is What Libertarian Morons Actually Believe.

>the conclusion of this separate article is unrelated, the data was used to show that i was right about some plants being about to grow faster and other factors not being such a limiting factor to growth.
The claim that rising CO2 emissions would benefit plant growth was literally directly contradicted by the article it cited as its only reference. You can't get much more retarded than that.
Nor did the ASI post (or the article it cited) support your claim that nutrient limitation wasn't an issue.
>the conclusion of this article is "without considerations of global warming". this is a separate matter if you'd like to pursue that claim.
and the overwhelming consensus is that WITH global warming things will only get WORSE due to climatic disruption. the whole point of the SciAm article is that even setting aside those effects, more CO2 doesn't necessarily mean more plants.
>remember the question was about c02 absorption being not a restricting factor as compared to more important nutrient absorption.
except you were talking about differences in carbon fixation between C3 and C4 plants, not nutrient vs CO2 limitation. we can literally scroll up and see what you were actually talking about.

>chimping out
>chimp out
back2 >>>/pol/, bigboy

>>8653565
>walk his nonsense back
Let's look at the rest of the quote:
>Our primary conclusions are based on a comparison of the longer term paleotemperature changes from our reconstruction with the well-documented temperature changes that have occurred over the last century, as documented by the instrumental record. Although not part of our study, high-resolution paleoclimate data from the past ~130 years have been compiled from various geological archives, and confirm the general features of warming trend over this time interval
To put it in words you can understand, they were building a record of the past 11 kyr, and current warming hasn't been going on long enough to get a statistically robust look at it from their work. HOWEVER, the direct instrumental record confirms the warming trend independently.

>I took a photo of a skyscraper and it looks like the building narrows at the top
>>but the top is too far away! at this distance you can't be entirely sure!
>well no, but someone else took a photo of the top, and their photo proves that it's narrower
>>HA! So you ADMIT you can't be sure! WARMISTS BTFO

>>8630879
Because both sides are bought out to argue the same things with a different slant. Either ignore or argue against the things you're paid to disinfo the fuck out of.
Right wing internet boards are almost universally in agreement about switching to nuclear instead of non-solutions like renewable, you're just never going to see politicians talking about it in a positive light because they don't want to give it any ground to stand on until their overlords give it their okay.

Not to mention, real solutions and real problems aren't worth talking about in the public eye apparently. Everyone just wants to argue about identity politic garbage or post the same bullshit solutions for climate page. And it's always the same thing. "Let's fuck over the middle class, put all the burden on them while the poor and rich keep being leeches". This is why I get bothered every time anyone goes off about climate change, because they have no real solutions. It's always muh carbon credits, muh live like a medieval dirt farmer.
I'm tired as fuck so I don't know if my tirade made any sense/

>>8576358

The inability to violate the "laws" of physics suggests that there is a top dog. Thus while probability is a meme it isn't.... unless it is.