/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9883175
hey faggot, I found the study you're plagiarizing.
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5179589/

I notice you selectively failed to post the parts of the conclusion that throw cold water on your opinions:

>However, the rate of the observed changes may have a large impact on already living species’ distribution and the spread of insects, as well as may affect grain yields and crop seed production (Winkler et al. 2002, Thuiller et al. 2005). Moreover, the increase in heat accumulation at the time of the last spring frost event as well as the variability of the frequency of frost events after sensitive plant growth stages is reached either maintains or increases frost risk (Winkler et al. 2002, Trnka et al. 2011).

>However, it has to be pointed out that these are hydrothermal conditions that drive crop yields and quality. Poland’s continental climate zone at middle latitudes faces significant interannual variability of precipitation amounts and water deficits, especially in the summer as a result (Trnka et al. 2011). Most of Poland features negative climatic water balance summer values (Wypych and Ustrnul 2011), which results in a decrease in water storage and summer water shortages (Szwed et al. 2010). Projected evapotranspiration intensity, driven primarily by additional temperature growth, will lead to an increasingly stressed water budget, and likely more varied or even limited rain-fed crop yields (Szwed et al. 2010, Trnka et al. 2011).

teal deer: plants may grow faster in warmer weather, but warming causes problems related to agricultural pests, spring frosts, and drought.

the fact that you deliberately avoided posting those bits shows you realize, on some level, that the science doesn't actually support your claims.

>>9530399
whom'st've are you quoting?

Concord are a different species (Vitis labrusca) than those grown for wine (V. vinifera), with different flavor profiles. it's possible to make wine at home, but you really shouldn't try using Welch's or any other store-bought grape juice.

mead might work better but it's tricky. better off just buying store-bought booze.

>>8994385
>Were you there?
Creationists have no problem accepting Biblical narrative, despite the fact that they weren't there either. We have a record, a geologic one, that tells us some of what has happened in the past, and it can be read (by a trained observer) almost like a book. When Creationists ask me this question, I prefer to answer with "yes, I was indeed there" and dare them to prove me wrong. It seems to fluster their jimbobs.
>Claims that according to evolution, humans evolved from chimps.
According to evolution, we evolved from a common ancestor (a chimp-like one, to be sure) that we share with chimps. And their point is...?
>Free space: Therefore, God did it.
Invoking supernatural intervention to explain unknowns has a poor track record. The same argument was once used to explain everything from seasonality to lighting to earthquakes. And as we got a better idea of how those work, suddenly people stopped magically attributing those to deities. More importantly, it is a needlessly complex and unfalsifiable conjecture.
>Claims evolution is not observable.
I refer you to the Lenski experiment. We have plenty of observations of evolution in progress; Creationists just like to pretend we don't.
>Evolution is only a theory.
This relies on the confusion between colloquial and technical uses of "theory". In science, a theory is an overarching idea that not only explains the sum of the evidence according to some principle or mechanism, but CONTINUES to explain new evidence as it comes in. That is, it stands up against attempts to disprove it. It's the closest thing to Fact that we have in science. General relativity is also a theory, but if you put an accurate clock in a fast airplane and fly it around for several hours, you can guarantee that it will have lost a fraction of a second in the journey.


(3/5)