/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10095309
>I am a qualified Earth Scientist
no, you're not.
t. actual geoscientist with two actual degrees in this shit from actual American universities

>>8857066
>Was referring to the cases described in >>8855986
that's not what gender dysphoria is though...
>Which obviously doesn't include genetic flaws that encourages mutilating your genitals and be infertile.
I Don't Know What Heterozygote Advantage Is: The Post
>Unless you are encouraging a society to limit their fertility
this is unambiguously a good thing. we're K selectors, now more than ever.

>>8857083
whether or not those conditions are defective is beside the point. is such a person that I described truly male or female?
>Correctly labeling them as mentally ill and providing access to therapy for them so that they can be a productive member of society
this is exactly what transitioning is. doctors have tried medication and therapy to cure gender dysphoria, and they haven't been able to make it work; depression and suicidal ideation remain common. the best option at hand, as evidenced by decades of research and practice, is to make the physiology match the neurology rather than vice versa.
gender dysphoria/gender identity disorder is an illness; transitioning is the treatment.

>>8604965
>The lava dome was dated at around a million years old despite being only a few years old. The man who displayed his findings was ousted as a heretic.
The lab he sent the samples to was very clear that the technique they used was only reliable for rocks >2my old. All tools and techniques have limited ranges over which they are accurate, and it is incumbent on the researcher to use the appropriate ones for the situation. You might as well claim that hand rulers are unreliable because they can't accurately measure the width of a bacterium.
(oh also, he didn't send them homogenous samples. heterogeneous samples can contain phenocrysts, which will make the rock appear older than it is if not excluded. but that's beside the point.)

>>8605031
>meaningless pseudo-scientific jargon
u sure showed him

>>8111838
>overlapping confidence intervals does not prove that statistics associated with the confidence intervals are not statistically significantly different
eh, fair enough. I was working with the converse of the statement and got a little garbled. your claim that because the overlap is only partial, however, remains unsupported. as it stands, the predicted range from the papers you cite is CONSISTENT with IPCC predictions. if you want to compute the confidence interval for the difference between the two, I shall be interested to see if it includes zero.

>I was obviously referring to these kind of situations.
Sure you were.
>I've performed countless confidence interval calculations.
If you say so!

And hey, if you're actually a statistics professor, why are you pushing the nonsense of "well just kinda LOOK at this graph and see that there's no correlation" here >>8110517?
like I said, Jaworowski didn't even ATTEMPT any sort of analysis, but you're all too eager to take his word as gospel.
ideological bias much?

>>7974638
>semiempirical
this word just means that the model used a combination of measurements and deriving things from physics. it's not a commentary on the accuracy of the work.
let me put it this way: we're able to predict eclipses and suchlike entirely because of semiempirical modeling. they do some evidence-gathering to see where a celestial object is and how fast it's moving, and then they can use what is known of physics to predict how it'll continue to move. try knowing what you're talking about, you yokel.

>In fact according to climate "scientists" we should all be underwater by now
name one such "scientist"