/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8671234
>In the past we've had literally 10 times the concentration of CO2 that we have now, and all the apocalyptic predictions of an ice free arctic and such that AGW evangelists have been talking about didn't happen.
Except that the Ordovician WAS almost entirely ice free. Glaciation only happened at the very end, and it coincided with a major drop in CO2; prior to that there was no glaciation at all, and the geochemical clues that we have indicate that seawater surface temperatures were over 40 C.
>Where we are on the curve also means that increasing CO2 basically does nothing to the temperature.
Except that's not actually true.

Why are emergent properties a thing in our universe?

Why isn't a whole necessarily just the sum of its parts? How do science and mathematics account for complexity that produces behavior unpredictable by individual parts, ex.: the brain giving rise to the mind, or packets of water molecules spontaneously crystallizing in an infinite number of complexly ordered patterns?

>>7295357
>And do you think for a moment that FedGov is neutral? It stands to make $Billions off carbon taxes.
This wins the award for Most Retarded Argument of the Year. Really? You think the American federal government is trying to soak people for money through carbon taxes?
First off, the people writing the budgets are from the party that OPPOSES science (including climate science). Secondly, if Congress wanted to raise taxes, THEY'D RAISE TAXES. Instead of concocting some multi-million dollar ruse (like you allege) to fabricate a reason to raise taxes on big businesses, they'd just raise taxes on big businesses! (Of course, the anti-science party is also the anti-taxes-on-big-businesses party.)

Look, when the debate was over whether or not tobacco was harmful, it was the same old claims that government research was biased in favor of getting Uncle Sam's sticky fingers all over the tobacco companies' money. It was the same old allegations of a massive conspiracy to fake results showing that tobacco is bad for you, often by the same people who today push climate denialism in Congress (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dj0PYdl99tI).). And it's the same useful idiots like you making fallacious and unsubstantiated arguments based on science that you have at best a fringe understanding of (which is a beautiful example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action).

>What do you call a non-tenured, government funded scientist who publicly denies Climate Change "Science?" Unemployed!
Yes, for the same reason the scientist would be unemployed if he publicly denied evolution through natural selection: because he'd be going against the overwhelming majority of the evidence.

>>7077115
well, I just so happened to find a published paper about the development of said skin patterns. It's free on ResearchGate with an account there (no fees).
I'm just a search engine whiz I guess.
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/230348914_A_unity_underlying_the_different_zebra_striping_patterns