/sci/ - Science & Math

that tweet is ironic, right?

>>10288308
Man-made global warming is correct. We know enough about our planet to be able to be sure about this.
The big bang theory is just a plausible theory though, and we really know jack shit about our universe to be able to speak with certainty.

>>10288308
It's actually amazing, the theories with the most evidence supporting them are the most likely to be called hoaxes by nutjobs.

>>10288308
We have evidence for both, and evidence for the Big Bang can be seen by simply turning your TV onto static, that static IS the Big Bang.

What could you expect from someone who studied economics

>>10288415
>most evidence
>manmade global warming
Viper, kill yourself my man.
>>10288425
We both know that's meme tier evidence.

Believing in science LMAO

>>10288308
The hoax in global warming is the proposed set of solutions:
1. Open your borders bigot
2. A whole bunch of dumb bullshit instead of nuclear power
3. Not phasing cars out or making them electric
4. Offshore your industry to places with fewer regulations
5. Use this new financial instrument that definitely won’t become a scam
6. Pay more for fuel
It’s a transparent fake and gay attack on poor people, rural people and white people

>>10288425
>evidence for the Big Bang

Back to >>>/x/ with your magical delusions. Every enlightened rational free-thinking reason-using logical scientific-methodical atheist knows it's all made up bullshit indoctrinated into children with cultural brainwashing to scam them into their coffers. Science exists to debunk religion, not parallel it. Any attempts to pervert this must be fiercely resisted to ensure progress continues and we don't end up in the fucking dark ages again where all education and mathematics were strictly forbidden.

>>10288534
Everything is a belief, you can't proof nuffin.

>>10288442

>>10288577
>Emit less greenhouse gases
>Warming is slowed
Wow what a hoax.

>>10288849
>VH, H, M, L
Don't hide the numbers, nigga

>>10289032
>hide the numbers
I love it when deniers just make shit up and show they have no idea what they're talking about.

>>10289161
The worst part is that these people actually exist, they run our country, they are the majority. Our horrible education system is coming back to destroy us.

>>10289161
Agreement isnt evidence

>>10289238
They are on different axes, but you think this is saying they are the same?

Please continue showering us with these nuggets of wisdom.

>>10288858
>just cripple your economy bro!
>you wouldnt want us to call you mean names right

>>10288410
t.fucking moron

>>10289270
>t. Salty child of stardust

>>10289262
>Just let global warming occur and cripple the economy broooooooooooooooooooooooo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Nordhaus

>>10289161
I was never suspicious until the IPOCC stated that they used lower thresholds of significance than the rest of the scientific community because "such large impacts require lower thresholds"

>>10289286
Did they state that or are you making shit up again?

>>10289161
Faggot, I just wanted to see percent significance and you give me this shitty chart that says nothing and call me a denier. I'm not denying shit, I just wanted to see your confidence intervals. "High" doesn't describe the confidence interval at all. Fuck off with your shitty strawman.

>>10289319
>implying you're allowed to question things at all

>>10288425
most of that is the sun/cosmic rays

the CMB accounts for about 1% of the static

>>10288308
I would guess that th two biggest "consensus theories," whatever they haoppen to be, probably have fewer people claiming they are hoaxes. That is sort of what consensus means.

>Cell theory
>Oxygen theory of combustion
>Atomic theory

>>10289417
Germ theory must be pretty high up there.

Send all evangelical climate change denialists and creationists to the gulag.

>>10289319
>Faggot, I just wanted to see percent significance
Significance of what?

>and you give me this shitty chart that says nothing and call me a denier
The chart explains what level of confidence means, retard. Where do you see numbers?

>I just wanted to see your confidence intervals.
They're right there on the graph. Do you understand the difference between level of confidence, significance level, and confidence interval?

>>10288308
more like alt-right

>>10288442

>>10289461
(1-a)100% confidence level. Give me a for VH, H, M, and L. Otherwise your data is missing a key element. For all I know, this table considers a=.40 "very high" Other than that, it checks out.
>>10289430
>>>/pol/
Man-made climate change is the current discussion. Get with the times.

>>10288308
Yes, he's right.

>>10289492
>(1-a)100% confidence level. Give me a for VH, H, M, and L.
Confidence level is the percentage of samples with confidence intervals expected to include the true value. Level of confidence refers to the amount of scientific agreement and evidence supporting the result. So what you're asking for makes no sense.

>Otherwise your data is missing a key element.
Which key element? It already has confidence intervals on the data, which tells you essentially the same thing as confidence level. There's a 95% chance that the true value is found in the range provided.

>For all I know, this table considers a=.40 "very high"
Very High isn't being used to qualify the confidence level in the first place. How do you still not understand this?

>>10288308
big bang isn't even political why is he trying to shoehorn that in here

>>10289506
He's probably a creationtard

>>10289505
Thanks. Your picture said "level of confidence" and yes, I see the intervals as well. All I didn't see was a .95, which was the exact reason I asked for the specific percent confidence. You can see why I would say that since it specifically says "level of confidence", which you reiterated the definition of several times.

>>10289270
is the big bang seen as the beginning of the universe? i could see the big bang being the beginning of, say, the milky way galaxy or even multiple galaxies or something, but i dont see the reasoning in trying to say that the universe hasnt always existed. i mean, that's basic physics, is it not?

>>10288308
Why are right wingers so retarded?
Is there a scientific explanation?

>>10288577
Nobody has ever said any of that in relation to global warming, come back to reality.

>>10289467
>the model's predictions were wrong
>"clearly it isn't the model that was wrong, but man's interference"
>>10288849
Not strong evidence. You'd first need a good correlation between man's CO2 emissions and the atmosphere's CO2 levels, which don't exist because man's CO2 emissions have been strictly increasing and one increase makes for trash beyond trash data, and you also can't borrow data from other planets because of the same instability caused by life. The historical data is also somewhat weak, being estimated from literal rocks.

>>10291442
Uh, adding variables when your model can't generate predictive data that matches the provided sample is pretty much exactly how mathematical models work.

>>10291442
>the model's predictions were wrong
The model predicted what the climate would be like without man's interference. How do you know it's wrong? Why are you allowed to ignore the effect of manmade emissions?

>Not strong evidence.
Why not?

>You'd first need a good correlation between man's CO2 emissions and the atmosphere's CO2 levels
Nothing is based on a mere correlation between temperature and CO2 emissions. The greenhouse effect is completely causative and directly observed.

>The historical data is also somewhat weak, being estimated from literal rocks.
The historical data is unnecessary to prove CO2's radiative forcing, but completely supports it.

You and I both know that you have no idea what you're talking about. Just stop before making an even bigger fool of yourself.

>>10291442
>You'd first need a good correlation between man's CO2 emissions and the atmosphere's CO2 levels, which don't exist because man's CO2 emissions have been strictly increasing and one increase makes for trash beyond trash data
Isotope ratios give it away.

The big bang is a hoax, but inflation is. A lot of cosmologists just believe, with extraordinary little evidence, that inflation is a fact.

>>10291494
This one seems more stable.
I'd like to see a mure current reading that took place in the tropics, so we know that it's not being influenced by geomagnetic reversal.

>>10292421
Oh nvm, i just noticed that the data here >>10291494 is from Antartica and Hawaii.

>>10291365
It's a theory but it is the one with the most scientific evidence at the moment:
>objects in space move away from us
>cosmic background radiation shows early photons still permeating the universe
>abundance of light elements like hydrogen and helium

Any other theory for the creation of the universe has practically no ground to stand on and religious believes have absolutely no scientific ground.

>>10288577
SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIORS ARE SNOWFLAKES OFFENDED BY HIGH TEMPERATURE..

>>10288577
>1. Open your borders bigot
Nobody says this about global warming. Lefties with their open boarder bullshit just happen to often be the same ones who believe global warming.
>2. A whole bunch of dumb bullshit instead of nuclear power
Everyone with half a brain knows the CO2 and other greenhouse emissions of nuclear power is vastly lower than that of any fossil fuel plant. The public is just afraid of the potential disasters and complication with the storage of the nuclear waste.
>3. Not phasing cars out or making them electric
Never in history has it occurred that people bought a car and were no longer allowed to drive it. You can still get out your 1912 Ford model T and give it a spin on the road. People will not stand for having their current cars outlawed. Now then, everybody who does recognize global warming advocates electric cars, so what you said in that regard made zero sense.
>4. Offshore your industry to places with fewer regulations
Yeah, it's pretty retarded but nobody advocates it as a solution for global warming. It's a necessary evil for consumer goods prices to stay low, and as long as the governments do nothing to disincentivize trade and outsourcing, it's not going to get better.
>5. Use this new financial instrument that definitely won’t become a scam
What is this even supposed to mean? Crypto was never pushed as a way to combat global warming. What's wrong in your head?
>6. Pay more for fuel
This is already happening you know. Americucks might be behind on how much it's taxed but in Europe we pay about more or less the equivalent of 6 dollars per gallon.

>>10288308
I tend to agree with the mutt w whiter teeth than family roots

no he is rarted and baiting normies

>>10292491
>nobody says this
They say it constantly.

>>10288410
You have no idea you are talking about. Read a book or two about dynamic systems.

>>10292835
read a book

>>10292831
>there will be millions of internal climate migrants if global warming isn't mitigated
>open your borders to solve climate change
How are these even remotely similar? Are you illiterate or just a liar?

>>10288415
More people != more evidence

>>10288425
>you can see evidence for god by looking at a beautiful baby

>>10292831
I assume reading comprehension is not your strong suit or you're just a bad faith moron. Big difference between "Open borders to stop climate change" and "If we allow climate change to increase, more refugees will pour into borders".

>>10289281
Do it yourself nigger
Government doesn't invent or save it can only steal. They don't care if the technology is ready and they can't force it to be, but what they can do is collect a shit ton of money from their citizens forcing premature solutions.
No one says living in an environmentally friendly way is undesirable or that trees don't exist. They say kids like you are naive and arrogant and fallible.
You all conflate a desire for smaller government with science denial beause your brains are puny due to not having lived long enough.

>>10291365
It's really not so much as an explanation for the beggining or the universe at it is an explanation of the beggining of the part that matters of the universe. The thing is, before the Big Bang, all the informaiton of the universe was perfectly mixed and comprised in a single point, and htus, it's unusable and offers nothing of value, you literally cannot predict anything before that because the information cannot be traced back by any means. By any means, you may believe in the Universe as something eternal that has always been there, but since it would have literally zero impact on anything that exist and has existed after the Big Bang, it's just not considered.

>>10288410
Except the bang wasnt really a directional explosion, suddenly there was space and everything was everywhere at once. Just like light doesnt actually wave, it just varies in field intensity. Lot of shit in popsci is horrifically misrepresented.

>>10294016
So now you have switched from "the solutions are fake" to "it will harm the economy" to "government bad." Why do you keep changing your position? It seems like you just have a conclusion that you need to reach and will say anything to reach it. No matter that your arguments keep getting debunked, as long as it gets you to the answer you want. The only problem with this is that once your credibility is destroyed by making bad faith arguments like strawmanning climatologists or pretending to care about the economy, you can't convince anyone of your position. Next time, try being truthful.

>>10294296
Remember that time some guy thought that life as we know it today was due to a process of slow but relentless change of earlier forms of life but since he was an outlier and the consensus at the time was different, his ideas simply never got accepted and everybody moved on? Crazy.

>>10294296
>climate deniers literally using a creationist meme as an argument

>>10294316
>Remember that time some guy thought that life as we know it today was due to a process of slow but relentless change of earlier forms of life but since he was an outlier and the consensus at the time was different, his ideas simply never got accepted and everybody moved on? Crazy.
What does that have to do with what i posted?
>>10294333
>climate deniers literally using a creationist meme as an argument

What's wrong with it? It's a pretty good depiction of how humans work

>>10294337
What's wrong with it is that

1. it ignores the scientific evidence and confuses a consensus of opinion with a consensus of scientific evidence.

2. it's being used to support pseudoscience, since it can be used indiscriminately to imply that any consensus is based on opinion.

>>10294354
>1. it ignores the scientific evidence and confuses a consensus of opinion with a consensus of scientific evidence.
It critiques human behavior, not evidence or science.People want to believe that science is something pure and incorruptible but the people who practice it are just as flawed as anyone else. I'm not denying man made climate change, and I do think that we should take steps to curtail emissions, but in the back of my mind I do see plenty of things going on in the world that are contained in that picture.
>2. it's being used to support pseudoscience, since it can be used indiscriminately to imply that any consensus is based on opinion.
Irrelevant

>>10293145
> accept unwanted 3rd worlders who refuse to assimilate unless you spend billions to buy worthless carbon credits