/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11460007
>>11460028

You're wasting your time reading into shit like free will, which is a pseudo-question in the sense of Carnap, and has been completely resolved since the 1940s. The resolution is simply to use logical positivism, to define carefully what you mean by free will. When you do this, there is no problem.

>>8632543
you can't even make up your mind whether he got the money over 5 or 10 years. either you were lying before or you're lying now. and whether or not he spent any of the money on "overhead", he still received that money. he'd have had to pay those costs even if he hadn't been sponsored; how does half of the money simply not count (according to you)?
by your dubious """logic""", if someone gives me a cool $1000 and I use half of it to pay rent and utilities, they only really gave me $500. that's some denier math in action.

>Almost all grants require deliverables.
making shit up for 300, Alex.

>>8632548
>complains about ad hominem
>accuses Al Gore of being mentally ill
clue meter reads zero

>>8632552
>No hot spot, troposphere warms less than the earth's surface
literally a lie
>https://phys.org/news/2015-05-climate-scientists-elusive-tropospheric-hot.html
>Global Sea Ice has only shrunk by about 5-10%
oh, well if it's only 10% then SURELY there's no actual warming! do you have any idea how much ice that is?
>untampered data
in other words, if you throw out all the data that shows that the Earth is warming, it no longer looks like the Earth is warming
>medieval warm period
this is just a reminder that the MWP was a European feature, not a global one.
>In the past, people didn't tamper, er, I mean "correct" their data to get the right answer.
data corrections are nothing new. in 1904, statistician Charles Spearman put together a method for correcting for instrumental error. it's called correction for attenuation, and it was an accepted practice before Wegener, McClintock, or Einstein published their great ideas.

you're literally insisting that all evidence that goes against your opinions MUST be fraudulent because you don't understand how corrections work. ironically, you have no evidence that the corrections are fraudulent, incorrect, or unjustified. again, you lack EVIDENCE. all you've got is OPINIONS.

Same as the rest of 4chan
fat anime tiddy

>>8431426
>What it really means is that the potential for truly catastrophic warming is essentially nil given the amplitude of the changes to the applicable variables.
You're an idiot if you think that long-term stability precludes major fluctuations on shorter timescales. You're just babbling about damping coefficients in an attempt to shoehorn a complex system undergoing changes on many different scales of time and space into a simplistic model that tries to lump all the different forcings together.
the geologic record, by the way, has pretty clear evidence of major swings, the kinds of sudden catastrophic change (the P-Tr extinction, among others) that you claim is impossible. what gives?

>Go back to school and take some real classes, junior. Stop trying to drag science down to your level.
This from the guy who makes shit up (about glacial cycles, about the geologic record, about heat flow in the Earth's atmosphere) and tries to simplify all meaning out of the system in an attempt to make it more digestible to him.
I'm an actual geoscientist, and I say you're full of soup, and of ruder substances.

>>8284341
By studying physics and not psychology.

>>8268987

I have a phD in shitposting, OP. Ask your question.

>>8260045

>>8164162
I've just read this article.
Sound more like psychology professors grasping for straws.
Their arguments are stuff like, they didn't use the same population, they didn't use exactly the same procedure we used, etc.
The truth is, there is some real science and there is some complete bullshit psychology papers published. Until psychology gets rid of the bullshit, I can't take it seriously.
So in fact trying to discredit it as a science, is a benefit for everyone.
Do you want to doubt every second sentence in your psychology book?
If not, then you should get rid of the bad studies and reexamine everything, you read.

>>8125083
>>8125085
>>8125086
>>8125089
>>8125106
>>8125109
>>8125112
>>8125115
>>8125117
>>8125123
>>8125128
>I POSTED IT AGAIN, LOL

yes, because cherry-picking a few papers that support your opinion TOTALLY proves a consensus, right?
I don't have the time to go through all your Gish Gallop, but the last time we did all this, you (or some other denier) posted the notrickszone list, and it proved to contain two papers published in predatory journals, one paper that wasn't even peer-reviewed and had just been posted on a denier blog (cargo cult science at its best), and a bunch of legitimate papers that didn't say ANYTHING about climate change.

>>7945541
>this other guy's opinions are scientific fact! why don't you accept his opinions as fact?
dude, his document doesn't contain any data. it doesn't subject the conclusions of other papers (actual peer-reviewed ones, unlike his) to any sort of analysis, and it doesn't highlight any actual issues in the methodology. all he does is declare that certain numerical values are wrong and biased (without providing evidence of such) and hand-wave his way to outright rejection of those papers.
it's not actual science (pic related); it's just formatted to LOOK like it is. and the fact that you think it disproves the warming of the earth just goes to show that you fell for the meme

Since we don't have access to the test, we cannot judge wether you professor is actually biased or not.

Also not /sci/ ffs. Go to /adv/.

Also you have autism.

1,6% m8

>>7354389
>His relaxed schedule.
lol
It is common knowlodge that the M.D schedule is one of the most demanding.

Being an M.D is one of the most demanding jobs. You don't relax, you make choices that can ruin your life in a dayle basis.

>finds himself as the life of the party
only a shitty doctor would say that. You have to be studying all of the time or you will be a shit doctor on a shit clinic

>The average med student is expected to master all fields of science.
loled
not master my friend, have some knowledge of.

The entry is pretty much true.

BUT REMEBER M8 pic related

The major sites probably aren't going to tell you.
So just send the person a link to a site that will tell you the ip of the people who click the link.

>>7319281
forgot pic, hurr

>-10pts
I don't even know what the fuck is this but I know its not science
Sage

>makes sweeping assertion based on one observation of something ancillary
>prove me wrong

>>>/x/

Fuck off cunt, this isn't the place for science vs. religion.