/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14553176
>No further discussion with you is needed.
>Me dumb. Me indoctrinated long ago. Me no like new facts. Me no talk no more, put paws over ears.

>>14550371
>Also it's guaranteed to drive down demand for fossil fuels in the long run,
HAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHHAAA

NOPE.

There are too many things made with petrol that cannot be made in any other method.

Oil and gas and coal are here to stay. Good thing there is plenty of it, with more discovered each year.

>>14550327
>why is thing you don't see often more appealing than thing you can kick the ground and hit

>>11799144
nice dubs

>>10348547

>>9627885

>>9605279

>>9582485

>>9542920
coke is used as a reducing agent in iron smelting, you brainlet. it's not in there to provide heat; it's added in for its chemical properties.

>>9496311

>>9455839
>what's the problem with climatic regions shifting? people should just go where the habitable climates go.
>waaah I don't want brown refugees in America!

>>9448656
>spend 4 years and thousands of dollars on education you can get just by going to a library

>become a cashier/car washer
>have the same job as illegal immigrants

Holy shit, these kids should have waited a few years before going to university so they could learn that the path of least resistance offers the least rewards.

Seriously, a 1-3 years working after high school really shows you why you should major in something more challenging. I bet they could even have gotten a job at Enterprise.

>>9440425

>>9404894
Advanced b8

>>9376750
>Putting together a "replacement" food based on nutrition science is like asking someone on /r9k/ how to please a woman sexually.

>>9340756
>Biomolecular Oompaloompas

>>8906864
Fucking kekked

>>8618479
>rounds 1.5-4.5 down to 1-4
>thinks arithmetic mean of 3 and 12 is 6
you're having a little trouble with basic maths there. but the real problem is this:
>thinks a 4K increase in global temp wouldn't have major consequences

>>8618461
you can reasonably infer causation if you have two of the three:
>correlation
>control
>plausible mechanism
and we've actually got all three here. we have a correlation in the historic record, we've seen an increase in temperature follow our increase in CO2 concentration, and we actually know for a fact how CO2 can contribute to the greenhouse effect.
still think U CANT KNOW NUFFIN? congratulations, you're either a contrarian or a retard.

>>8111004
>Change in atmospheric CO2 mass should strongly correlate with anthropogenic CO2 flux.
and it does on the macroscale. you're whining about microscale fluctuations seen in CO2 mass but not in anthropogenic CO2 flux. you're ignoring the overall trend to focus in on little year-scale fluctuations.
and let me remind you, temperature having an effect on CO2 flux is NOT proof against AGW. in fact, the scariest predictions regarding warming DEPEND on this feedback; increased warming from human CO2 emissions causes increases in permafrost melt, for example, and that leads to the release of EVEN MORE CO2.

>So you admit that CO2 doesn't drive temperature
it's almost as if there's more than one factor driving year-to-year fluctuations, even if one of them dominates the larger trend.

>change in ENSO explains CO2 rate change
FTFY
a high or low ONI doesn't cause a change in CO2 rate. it is the TRANSITION from one to the other that does. you might want to have some idea of the other side's arguments before you try to attack them.

>don't ever explain why Humlum is wrong ever again! he's right, I swear! don't you dare show that he's wrong!

nice meme picture by the way
>hurr I drew some arrows on a graph therefore climatology is a lie

>>7950573
>anyone who disagrees with me is a paid shill!
>I'm the only one who knows the truth!
>and to prove it I'mma post a badly-cropped SJW image macro
>there, sure showed that warmist XD

>there are people on /sci/ right now who think that an undergraduate degree in math is difficult to obtain

>>7292484
>I use gamma waves for cooking