/sci/ - Science & Math

>Convince me Climate Change exists
the temperature record shows warming over the past century at a rate that's usually associated with flood basalt volcanism. study of ice cores going back ~600 ka shows that this rate of warming is unprecedented in recent history
>it is caused by human activities instead of being natural
solar activity is trending neutral/cooling and we're still in the cooling part of the Milankovitch cycle.
meanwhile, atmospheric CO2 levels have risen precipitously, and the d13C of atmospheric CO2 has been dropping just as fast, indicating a massive influx of organic carbon (i.e. not from volcanism)
>and it's a bad thing for the planet.
ocean warming and acidification are already depleting fisheries.

do you dispute any of those? or do you just not understand them?

>>9976676
>2018
>just making shit up because the facts don't support your opinions
never change

>>9739466
why is the inside of the door to /his/ labeled /pol/ though? are they immediately adjacent? /his/ having a door to /pol/ in it would just be bad planning.

sage and ignore, people. he's fishing in empty waters.

>>9334592
>>9334986
>oy
/pol/acks are incredibly bad at not sounding like /pol/acks. easily detected when they start shitting up other boards for the simple reason that they aren't really capable of independent thought and just repeat their worn-out list of tropes over and over. hence, the omnipresent assumption that (((someone))) is behind it all.

>>8933296

>>8751547
nah, it was a screencap of an actual greentext story...fuck, wish I'd saved it.
thanks though, saving that one for future use.

>>8745366
>u can't gather data to try and test a hypothesis
>u have to gather random data and then afterwards decide what you're going to try and test
not only is it standard methodological practice to come up with a hypothesis BEFORE you take your measurements (because how else are you supposed to know what to measure), what you are actually advocating is data snooping, a grave statistical sin. deciding what to measure based on the data you've gathered gives artificially high significance to your chosen metric, and will get your paper rejected by any reputable document.
t. grad student and actual researcher

>>8745383
>>8745392
this 100%

>>8745335
>Bought and paid for. It's been done before, bud.
>>8745410
>>s-science was once paid for by someone I don't like
>>therefore my opinion is correct
>Liberal "science", everybody.
the cognitive dissonance must be killing you right now. typical conservative hypocrisy.

>>8675820
>>8675824

>>8652566