/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9545355
yes, and? that doesn't relate to the point I was addressing.
(also, you still have to have a reducing agent somewhere in the system; reduction cannot be decoupled from oxidation. all resorting to electrolysis does is separate them in space.)

>>7140799
smell comes from small particles being carried by the air into our noses where they land on cells with sophisticated chemical receptors. we can only detect smells if enough particles of a given type end up in the nose; there is a detection threshold.

the sharp "metallic" smell of metals, however, isn't actually from the metal. rather, sweat and body oil react with minor constituents of metal objects, and we associate the smell with the metal we just touched.
>http://www.nature.com/news/2006/061023/full/news061023-7.html

>>7089686
if the average temperature of the Earth assumed a downward or neutral trend in the absence of any obvious forcing, I'd have no choice but to conclude that human activity isn't causing the Earth to warm. That is, I'd fail to reject the H0 (that human activity has no effect on global climate) in favor of the Ha (that human activity causes a rise in average temperature across the globe).
I think every credible /sci/duck would be in agreement with such a situation. So it's perfectly falsifiable, sure. All you're doing is getting buttmad that the models can account for what you think is proof positive against AGW.