/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9992619
>all credibility especially when you get 3 - 4 harvests per years.

Number of harvests is far from the actually thinking you need to consider you dumbass. Read the Tanzania groundnut scheme to see why jacking off to MUH HARVESTS failed so hard for the Britsh. Seriously it's an amazing read to see why idiots not understanding agriculture and ignoring the experienced farmers and trained soil scientists caused the British to waste 50+ billions dollars.

>>8751416
>political feasibility is technical feasibility
this is simply not true, you fucking imbecile.
ever heard of Operation Plowshare? perfect example there of something that's technically feasible, just not politically feasible. the science was there, but public concerns stymied any application of the technology (beyond early tests).
>MUH WWIII BOOGEYMAN
fucking millennialists like you have been predicting the end of the world for literally centuries (there was a big pulse of it in Asia ~400 years ago because of 1000 AH) and you have been wrong every single time. off to >>>/x/ you go.

>>8751433
does anyone have the greentext story talking about people on /pol/ shitting in bathtubs, repeating the behavior when they come to /sci/, and being perplexed by how people here don't believe them when they say they're not from /pol/?

>>8751499
>they link to scientists at major universities; you can find their studies if you were intellectually curious
that you still think we care more about a soundbite than a peer-reviewed paper demonstrates just how little you understand about how science works.

>>7965765
>Better and greener technology is slowly being developed and replacing the old and polluting one.
I don't think you understand the meaning of "fixing itself". People are working on fixing the problem, but this requires actual input and effort. Greener technologies are only being developed BECAUSE the problem is being prioritized. Do you think advances just appear on their own?
>I have explained how it will happen.
No, you've said that it will happen. Your explanation is just a bunch of hand-waving to the effect that it will all work itself out if we just sit back and watch.
>Go and ask one biologist what the animals will do if the weather gets to hot for them.
They may disperse, but a lot of them will die out. Evolution and dispersal aren't these magical mechanisms by which organisms instantly adapt to changing environments; they have some very hard limits, particularly on short timescales (and yes, centuries is a very short timescale for most organisms we're worried about).
Source: I'm a paleontologist, I study this sort of shit.
>Read a history book.
In other words, you don't have any evidence but insist that it's in the history books...SOMEWHERE.

>posts WUWT link
>quotes politicians and military advisors, tries to hold climatologists accountable for their exaggerated statements
>I-I'm not a denier, guise! why don't you believe me!