/sci/ - Science & Math

>One particularly striking adaptation was the evolution of a strain of Homo Sapiens that was able to use memes as a shitposting source in a Kyrgyz embroidering environment.

>>8730761
that would produce chlorine gas
which is v. bad for you but not as bad as mustard gas.

>>8730938
>I don't know what a metabolic pathway is: The Post

>>8730934
>>8730939
that's a /pol/ kind of question, of course he's trying to (((poison the well)))

>>8621491
>Once you start "correcting for measurement bias", you're reasoning from your presumptions, not from your data.
I hope you're sitting down: IT'S POSSIBLE TO QUANTIFY BIAS THROUGH DIRECT MEASUREMENT
>An honest scientist who knows the old readings are inaccurate discards them.
and yet in >>8619314 you accused Richard Feely of fraud...ENTIRELY BASED on him not including old readings that are known to be inaccurate.
can you explain why you've taken two diametrically opposite positions on this issue?

>>8621501
>I've never heard of this highly technical work
>therefore the lamestream scientific establishment is ignoring it
...you do know that solar activity has been declining since ~1950, right? and we've continued to see dramatic warming despite that?

>>8106398
>The WHO 1998 report for example has been criticized heavily by other people as well.
yes, because the opinion of an IT salesman (not making this up) extrapolating wildly from a few cherry-picked studies is more credible than the entire medical community.
>this is what these people actually believe

>If you seriously can't look up these sources yourself and I have to fucking do it for you
basically:
>it's unreasonable to expect a document to cite its sources; it's the job of the reader to go and find the data himself
I suggest you take that approach next time you have to write a paper. include some quotes and attribute them only to the speaker's last name, and don't include any actual references.

>What's with alarmists and their weird desire to paint anyone who supports a cause they aren't fond of as denialists?
let's see...
>the earth isn't warming!
>co2 doesn't act as a greenhouse gas!
>there's no evidence that tobacco causes cancer!
>we've never observed evolution in action!
>the photoelectric effect isn't real!
>radiometric dating isn't reliable!
>there's no neurological evidence that sexual orientation is innate!
nope, no denial there!
if someone wants to tell me that raising the minimum wage to $12 nationwide will kill jobs, we can have a discussion on that. if someone wants to tell me that eating meat is inherently bad for you, I'll hear them out. that's because those claims are actually debatable; there's evidence for and against them, but there's no evidence strictly proving or disproving those claims.
you're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts. contra principia negantem non est disputandum!