/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15087518
oh
oh oh
oh GOD
I'M GONNA LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONCH

>>11678962
Unironically based.

>>10073058
>I don't want to talk about this anymore becuase you're such a complete dumbass.
read as:
>I have no idea what I'm talking about and it's starting to show

>At best you've taken a class that was tacked on to a bio major or something useless, which doesn't count as "a background"..
I took a full year of college stats and (more importantly) did my MS thesis on geometric morphometric ontogeny. a journal paper version of it is currently in final revisions.
>argument from authority fallacy
you're really reaching now. all I said was that my background in stats allowed me to see through your bullshit and not be fooled by the use of technical language.

>so they can make aggregate predictions of the weather but never have, not even once?
you literally just admitted that you refused to watch the 1-minute video laying out some simple predictions made by climatologists and how they compared to measurements.

>You could have spelled it out after I asked and made me look like a fool but you didn't
you don't need my help for that.
>implying I'm not asking
worse. you're asking and then ignoring the answers given because you suspect you won't like them.
>You've got nothing but propaganda videos and I know for certain I made the right call in not wasting my time.
turns out evidence you don't like no longer counts if you just call it propaganda!
none so blind, etc. etc.
>There has never been an accurate prediction from the global warming alarmist industry
there are 7 accurate predictions from mainstream climatologists illustrated just in that little video you're too scared to watch.
>If they had anything valid you would have said so.
and so I did. ignoring the evidence won't make it go away, you sniveling child.
>It's hilarious you think they can make 100 year aggregate predictions but not 25 year aggregate predictions.
Law of Large Numbers, nibba.

>>9747390
that's bullshit.
why? we haven't observed it.

>>9707830
>if plants are given plenty of fertilizer, more CO2 means more growth
>this proves that CO2 is just plant food, since all plants in the wild inhabit rich soil with iron, nitrate, and phosphate in excess.

>>9707845
>What do you think would happen if the average temperature were to rise slightly? Horrible drought? Or increase rainfall due to more water being evaporated.
Warming expands the Hadley cells, causing subtropical deserts to expand to higher latitudes. A worldwide increase in rainfall doesn't mean that everywhere gets more rain.
This shit is introductory level climatology.
>CO2 is horrible at being a greenhouse gas. If anything, Excessive CO2 in atmosphere would only act as more plant food and temporary raise the temperature, thus increasing precipitation.
Of course extra CO2 doesn't have bad effects! That's why 252 million years ago, the Earth was a lush paradise, not an aridity-stricken hellscape with drought-scorched land and bacteria-choked seas.

>>9621326
>solar and wind

>>9455834
(You) posted a graph of satellite altimetry data for global sea level from 2016 to 2017 and questioned why it would only be expanded back to 20 years.
I said that that specific graph could only go back 20 or so years because the satellite altimetry record only goes back to 1993.
(You) claimed I had said the entire sea level record only goes back that far, indicating that you either didn't actually read what I posted or actually think there's no other record of sea level.

It's okay, reading comprehension is hard. Don't get salty just because you got b8ed.

>>8868067
every time, like clockwork. they just can't control themselves.
:^)

>>8776127
>all the conservative media sources say one thing, in agreement
conservative memedia sources can't even stay consistent with their own reporting. they're parroting Trump's claims that he won fair and square in an honest and fair election BUT that the popular vote was stolen from him by illegals who voted. you can't be a credible news source and simultaneously push two mutually contradictory claims.
meanwhile, literally every "LIBRUL" source that commented on, say, the claim about the murder rate agreed that the claim was false for the same reason.
nice projection, fag.

>>8752921
>No private sector company would be anywhere near as stupid as they were.
Bhopal begs to differ

>>8739297
>Ofcourse it's murder, just a subset of it, called self defense.
you seem to be confusing murder with homicide, you dense motherfucker

>>8620410
>you didn't REALLY live in Woodlawn!
>okay you lived in Woodlawn but not in REAL GHETTO Woodlawn
dude, relax. no part of Woodlawn is actually all that ghetto. there's some gang activity, but it's significantly safer than purely economic factors (like median income and home value) would predict.
for someone who swears they're from Chicago or something and knows how things are in The Ghetto, you seem awfully unaware of this. your overreliance on economic proxies is telling.

>>8609121
>certainty will always eventually come back around to bite you on the ass
>always
are you certain of that?

>I've got nothing else to add so I'm out now.
so...no evidence to support any of your claims? k.

>>8580732
>blacks are worse off after decades of liberal policies
funny joke
you said something...and it wasn't true!
HILARIOUS

>>8535209
>You didn't even respond to what I said.
kinda did desu senpaialam
but to repeat, is your complaint that the example only considered change in one trait at a time, or that the larger change resembled the smaller change?
because your response seemed to consist of dismissing the metaphor for being too simple. it's almost as though it's a simplification of an extremely complex process, right?

>you have no original ideas!
>calls figure dumb and dismisses it out of hand for simplifying something complex, without raising any substantive issues
brainlet.

>>8476044
BTFO

>>8476093
>I've seen people who can't speak English for shit use food stamps with my own eyes.
amazingly enough, some US citizens can't speak English for shit.
>Places like NYC welcome illegals with open arms
yes, because NYC has control over federal welfare programs

>>8477135
>someone didn't believe the unsourced pics I posted
>don't they know that if there's a picture it must be true!
>probably just liberal shills
did your parents have any children that lived?

>>7542212
>read this thinking its not real
>its real
>mfw

>>7426227