/sci/ - Science & Math

They didn't. I'm doing science now and no one's governing it.

Also climate change is a load of bull shit.

>>1606470

Care to explain why?

>>1606470

Well, that's a stupid statement. The climate is obviously changing, we just don't know how much of the change can be attributed to human activity.

>>1606478

When did the climate change denialist right take over /sci/?

Denying anthropogenic global warming is not the same as denying climate change.

Intelligent Design is not the same as young earth creationism.

White separatism is not the same as hating blacks.

climate is always changing
agw is just social conditioning exercise
loot goes to Blood & Gore (David & Albert)

defined saparau

still; less polution, more trees plant nature care talk. even if its a hoax it does rail for more enviromental thinking, thats a good thing.

>>1606515
I'd rather have a job.

ITT: retards and idiots.

Well... I always feel sort of torn on a lot of these things.
On one hand, there is definitely a lot of money going into research and work that is superflous and downright useless if man-made global warming turns out to not be true. ( Which I personally am leaning more and more towards as I learn about the subject )

On the other hand - some of the scientific advances that this political pressure is spawning are pretty great...
Light-bulbs that give the same amount of light but use 1 % of the energy?
Roof-terraces and urban farming ? Houses that are built to be naturally ventilating in the summer and store heat in the winter ? More efficient batteries, and electrical cars that are actually practical ?
Considering that almost 95 % of human beings will be living in cities in another 50 years, if trends keep up, these things are gonna be really useful in the long run - even if the global warming was just a storm in a waterglass.

>>1606528
>he thinks we have the accuracy to measure .01 degree differences a year before the 90s
>u mad

>>1606537
>implying we can now do so reliably around the world

>>1606458
I find it ironic that a picture that says it want to believe in climate change has, as the last part, a picture of people in a desert

freudian slip?

>>1606540
>>1606537
>implying that is what matters.
why don't you learn the basics of climatology before posting.

>>1606549

>Implying the basics of climatology are based on bullshit instead.

you deniers are just like creationists. denying the truth because it goes against your ideology.

resources are finite. deal with it.

Is "libertarian" some sort of code word for "fucking retard" that I'd not been informed about? I mean I keep hearing it so much, they seem to be sprouting up everywhere...

>>1606554
even of 100 sensors are badly located, in the average of thousands of others, it doesn't make a difference.

also, fuck off to /new/, and take your economic fairy tales with you.

>>1606551

Stop posting.

Pump sulfur into the stratosphere, everyone wins.

>>1606565
yes, you need to be retarded to believe that economic anarchy is a good idea.

>>1606569

>Implying that u mad.

>>1606565
>>1606567

libertarianism is an entire half of the political spectrum. You're painting with a very broad brush.

I am economically centrist.

>>1606532
So we pretend it's happening to accelerate technological advances that will help us cope with other problems in the near future? Sounds good.

>>1606560

Wow, that actually sorta hurts...

I actually used to believe pretty unquestioningly in manmade global warming.

I think what made me doubt at first was when a friend studying arctic climatology pointed out to me that water-vapour is a considerably more active greenhouse-gas than CO2, and that not only is the amount of water-vapour in the atmosphere a couple of hundred times larger than CO2, it also regularly swings by as much 30 %, with no discernible global temperature changes being caused by that.

If that is true, then it just seems to me that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere changing by a few percentages is... an unlikely candidate for being the cause of temperature change.

NO

You know, I was optimistic in assuming /sci/ could actually understand science, but JESUS FUCKING CHRIST this is bad.

>>1606575
>libertarianism is an entire half of the political spectrum.

The dumb half, right? I guess someone has to end up on the wrong end of the bell curve...

>>1606584
>the dumb half

So I take you're anti-gun, against same-sex marriage, against the legalization of drugs, etc?

Because that's all authoritarian bullshit.

You'd figure that /sci/ would know anything about political science.

>>1606583

>"You wrote a post I disagree with, by logical scientific deduction you must be unable to understand science."

'lax dude.

Now if Climate "science" actually starts doing repeatable experiments instead of just observations and making computermodels (all models are wrong, some are useful), we could actually accept it as a science.

While a lot of the research itself is actually sound, the conclusions that are drawn do no necessarily follow the premise and are often biased by ones political view. If it all wasn't so damn political we might actually get a real and unbiased answer.

>>1606575
>libertarian
>economically centrist.
it's called "Liberal"

ron paul 2012

>>1606593
>>1606584

IN THIS DAY AND AGE WE STILL ASSUME PEOPLE HAVE EXACTLY ONE POLITICAL AFFILIATION WHICH DECIDES THEIR OPINIONS ON ALL ISSUES FOREVER? REALLY?

>>1606584
Libertarian isn't necessarily bad, but the smart people that could be classified as libertarian prefer other labels. Technically, it's anti-authoritarian. In my view, certain things shouldn't be illegal but there should be economic incentives to control the behaviour of the masses, e.g. subsidizing energy efficient lighting and appliances, taxing electricity use over a certain threshold (so people can still pay for heating and cooking). Taxing weed, tobacco and alcohol, and banning advertising for said products.

>>1606593
anotherfag here, but unless you're fucking ready to expand into space, we really are going to have to start curtailing the rampant capitalism

>hurr durr earth has plenty
yes, but most of it is under tens of kilometers of rock and red-hot boi-ling mag-ma

and the biosphere is already collapsing and in parts has collapsed

/sci/ i am really disappoint

>>1606614

Subsidies = corporatism

Fuck, I can't even EAT wheat, why should my tax dollars pay for it?

>>1606607

Statist assholes hijacked that term. I refuse to label myself as such.

>>1606593

Obviously I'm not trying to make an actual political argument here, it just amazes me that the people taking the dumbest stances always seem to self-identify as libertarian, as though, I don't know, anyone who's willing to consider any nuance or put some thought into their position knows better than to immediately disqualify their argument by having it associated with Teabaggers and Glenn Beck. I don't know, maybe you're not American (though your climate change stance is a really big clue), but the term has been hijacked by idiots and is thus a dirty word for anyone with half a brain, regardless of your actual position in the political spectrum.

>>1606608
he can’t win, don’t jizz yourself.

>>1606616
Your Greenpeace religion makes you believe that eh?

>>1606621

I'm an Eastern Canadian, actually. I'm immune to your stereotypes! :)

>>1606604
>>1606604
Just like a young earth creationist who says evolution is wrong because you can do an experiment on it and have to look at the fossil record. Oh the hypocrisy

>>1606623
Wait, what? So you reckon people just do the right thing? That's a tad optimistic. There need to be incentives, whether they're in the form of taxes or subsidies is irrelevant.

>>1606581
>vater-vapour is a considerably more active greenhouse-gas than CO2, and that not only is the amount of water-vapour in the atmosphere a couple of hundred times larger than CO2, it also regularly swings by as much 30 %, with no discernible global temperature changes being caused by that.
sadly, your friend fails the absolute basics. water vapor is limited only to the lowest layer of the atmosphere, the troposphere,hile CO2 is dispersed throughout all the layers.
also, contribution of water vapor to greenhouse effect is neutralized because water vapor also increases albedo. which means, it reflects sunlight back into space.

>>1606604 Now if Climate "science" actually starts doing repeatable experiments

Climate refers to the entire planet. We don't have a dozen other Earths we can do experiments on you dumbfuck. A model is all that will ever be possible.

>>1606632
>evolution is wrong because you can do an experiment on it
>evolution wrong because you CAN do experiments
>DERP

>>1606634

If people DIDN'T somehow feel responsibility to the world they live in, if they DIDN'T want to do the right thing, then they wouldn't GIVE A FUCK about anthropogenic global warming.

If you stop filling their heads with lies, people will make the right choice for themselves and be very vocal about it.

>>1606638
If it doesn't follow the scientific code it isn't science. Don't be mad at me, I didn't make the rules.

Climate change is right, the scientists have a consensus on the issue, no need for experiments.

>>1606647
>>1606647
science is also based on observation not just repeatable experimentation. learn2science

>>1606646
>people will make the right choice for themselves

YOU ARE A VERY HOPEFUL INDIVIDUAL.

>>1606649
0/10, go troll somewhere else

>>1606593 Although decriminalization and several other neato things fall under the term libertarian; everyone I've ever met who identifies themselves as a libertarian believes in the doctrine so much they are motivated by ideology not evidence or logic.

Biggest thing they always go on about is how we should let market forces control everything. Therefore every government funded science, medicine, transportation, or education system needs to be privatized. I'm not sure how this is supposed to be an improvement because I can't follow their shitty logic.

Whenever it comes to issues which any rational person knows private industry won't give a fuck about fixing (global warming for example) they get cognitive dissonance (my mind is full of fuck) and need to deny that such problems exist all together.

>>1606647
i'm sure you will point out to me some examples of climate studies that violated the scientific method, complete with references to peer reviewed papers in which they were published.

>>1606655

It sounded very sarcastic to me.

>>1606654

Perhaps.

If you're right and people would fuck things up, we end up just as boned as we would be under an economic or governmental oligarchy. If I'm right and people, then we have a real shot at making this a better world.

And for all you communists on /sci/, you know that you CAN have your own little commune in a libertarian world, right? And if you have any surplus, I don't mind trading with a commune, as long as I'm not forced to be part of it. The opposite is NOT true.

>>1606652
Stop reading things that aren't there. I never stated repeatable experimentation was the only thing required, just that it IS required

>>1606664

>If I'm right and people can think for themselves*

Derp.

>>1606661
>>1606661
I don't think you can.
Give it a try.
I'm waiting.

>>1606604
it goes like this:
>observe
>build a model from observations
>use the model to predict future events
>observe, compare observations to predictions
>if they don't match, discard or modify the model
>repeat the process

current warming was predicted 40 years ago, so i guess the models do work.

>>1606670
citation needed

>>1606670

We're still LEAVING an ice age.

>>1606661
Any article, whether peer reviewed or not, can not be regarded as true science, unless experiments were performed that can be repeated.

>>1606676
>>1606676
You don't know what peer-review or the scientific method are do you?

>>1606676
you fail scientific method.
evolution is not true science, because we can't repeat it?
black holes are not true science, because we can't make one in the lab?

>>1606673
[citation needed]

>>1606676
Derp Derp. I just saw some comets hit Jupiter in my telescope. That's just an observation not science. Derpy -Derp, this isn't scientific, will never be published and never really happened.

the weakest parts of libertarianism are these:

1. not understanding constructed nature of ego and self
2. inadequate understanding of the contingency of initial distribution and historicity of natural property rights
3. idealistic understanding of agency.
4. following from 3, the tendency to treat real social problems as personal problems, because of idealized understanding of agency.

it's a rather limited political philosophy

http://www.mediafire.com/?eechlj9hgdxl1cd
here's michaek otsuka's modern left libertarianism that touches on 2. construction of agency is a result of phil. of mind and action.

>>1606672
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
complete with citations.

>>1606691

Property rights are an extension of the right to one's own life.

Life is measured in time. If you decide to spend your time doing making something, it can be said to be the product of your life. THAT is why it has value.

>>1606705
see, you are just restating what property right is to you. but that doesn't solve any problems.
1. original possession is hard to justify
2. the exact nature, or the degree of forcefulness of the property-wall is a valid point of contention.

anyways, the point is that property is political and historical.

>>1606705
Oh boy, here we go with the libertarian pseudo-intellectualism about how society can only take away rights because rights don't come from society, they come from some magical "natural" place that you can't explain.

libertarians as deluded as communists just really right wing instead

>>1606575

> Implying libertarianism ain't a sub-set of liberalism

Seriously, the fuck?

>>1608171

There is such a thing as left-libertarianism.

>>1608201

Classical liberalism is a subset of libertarianism. Neo-liberalism is authoritarian.

>>1606705

>Property rights are an extension of the right to one's own life.
Since when has my property become an extension to my allowance of life; therein an allowance to my existence through time, as you rightly point out in your next short paragraph?

I am not my house. I like my house, but truth be told, I don't really own it. It has been tacitly agreed between myself and my parents that I may have this house. In the eyes of the law they own it though. Not only doe your point seemed flawed, it seems, in my case, that it is completely wrong.

>>1608201
he's right, look at a political compass, the whole bottom is libertarian and the whole top is authoritarian. I'm pretty sure most of 4chan is libertarian, and not like the crazy ron pauls and everything, the only justified libertarian is left-wing, the right-wing libertarians are just crazy.

Why is it that the same people who believe in creationism are climate change deniers?

>>1608237
Speaking economically and politically, libertarianism and liberalism are almost entirely contradictory. Do not let yourselves mistake libertarianism as anything but a right-wing, pro-corporation, pro rich 'faux religious sect'. The path to the libertarian paradise only appears correct to those who accept its guiding philosophies to be 'perfect'. Perfection is impossible within a society of 3 or more people.

>>1608229

How can you completely misunderstand the concept of ownership, of all things?

>>1608228
>>1608228

Where's you get that idea from? Libertarianism is pretty much the same as neo-liberalism, nothing but a reaction towards the recent development social-liberalism.

Bout emerged from liberalism and their ideas about liberty and equality, the difference being that one of them focus on negative freedom such as the freedom from responsibility of others and their community while the other focuses on positive freedom such as freedom to free healthcare and school.

>>1608271
Ditto, my tedious friend.

FFS, americans have some fucked up political terminology.

it always was:
conservative, liberal = right wing
communist, socialist, social democratic = left wing

american political spectrum consists of an extreme-right party and a and centre-right party.

>>1608259

I'm agnostic. Fuck off.

>>1608263

You *DO* know the difference between "Libertarian" and "libertarian", right? Upper/lower case is important when it comes to politics.

>>1608276

1. Taxation without representation is theft. Why should someone living in Alberta have to pay for a bridge built in Quebec? The Albertan has no say in it, and that's BULLSHIT.

2. Neo-liberals are very selective about freedoms. When was the last time you saw a pro-gun neo-liberal party?

>>1608296
why anyone in my street should pay for repairing of the road on the next street? why should anyone pay for anything ever?
you're an idiot.

>>1608263
See, thats why your only seeing half the picture and coming up with erroneous ideas. The right-wing libertarian is for complete capitalism and un-regulated businesses and corporations, basically freedom for organizations from government, but (and im using neo-libertarians like ron paul and the like) at the same time the government is suppose to protect the rights of those organizations . The left-wing libertarian, is for the people and their rights, always fighting for more rights, privileges and freedoms for the individuals. The government in the eyes of the left-wing libertarians is for protecting the common people from big organizations taking advantage of them.

I mean that HAS to be the only damned explaination and im surprised you don't understand this, there are 4 sections on the political compass and if anyone them stands for social programs, privileges, protecting the prols it has to be left-wing libertarianism by its own definition. Don't be deceived by the media that the only form of libertarianism has to be the lunatic right wing tea parties and crazy pro-corp fundies.

>>1608314

We have local governments. By going with the smallest level of applicable government, you have the greatest representation.

If the road stays within the boundaries of community A, then it's only A's business. If it goes across the state/province, then the state/provincial government should take care of it.

How many times do I need to repeat that I am ECONOMICALLY CENTRIST?

>>1608282
Why are you stalling with this banter? It puts yourself down, and stains your tripfagged 'image'. Continue the point, or stop discussing. And learn a little theory before adopting a libertarian outlook. Hoppe and Friedman would not wish for such a spectacle, chum.

I though this discussion ended like two years ago.
Even /r9k/ and /b/ accepted man made global warming is real.
wtf, /sci/?

>>1608315
Why are you surprised 'I don't know this'? Do you know anon?

Your points, in no way, run opposite to my own views and understanding of libertarianism.

ITS ALL A CONSPIRACY GUYS!

>>1608342
Proud liberal here. Look at the scientific data (AND WHO HAS PUBLISHED AND COMPILED IT) and the picture becomes clear. Confusingly clear, dare I say.. how can this farce still continue? Global warming is a natural process, and mankind's contributions to the effect are too small to register. Did you know that for the last 10-15 years we have experienced global cooling?

>>1608329
>By going with the smallest level of applicable government, you have the greatest representation.
no, you're just increasing the number of layers in the government. local governments need to be coordinated by higher control structures.
also, large projects fragmented between small local governments will be more expensive, as per economy of scale.

>>1608365
you said
>Do not let yourselves mistake libertarianism as anything but a right-wing, pro-corporation, pro rich 'faux religious sect'.

which i followed up by telling you this is wrong, and if you believe that is the only application of libertarianism, then you aren't understanding the whole picture.

>>1606458
that image tells me you are a retard.

>>1608382
your parroting of agw denier talking points bores me.
just read
>>1606528

>>1608296

> 1. Taxation without representation is theft. Why should someone living in Alberta have to pay for a bridge built in Quebec? The Albertan has no say in it, and that's BULLSHIT.

That's nice, and totally irrelevant

> 2. Neo-liberals are very selective about freedoms. When was the last time you saw a pro-gun neo-liberal party?

Too bad I was asking about the ideology, and not the people behind it. Again, where did you get the idea that classical liberalism was a sub-set of libertarianism, or that neo-liberalism is authoritarian?

These or the bullshit statement I'm curious about.

Dear OP: Shut the fuck up.

pic related, op

I don't think global warming is "all that they claim it to be", personally.

...but having people concerned about the environment is never a bad thing and technology will certainly benifit from the shift in thinking it's caused.

Simply telling people that if we don't change our bad habits we'll ruin the world, it isn't enough.

Keep in mind that we've only been monitoring the weather of 5 billion year old planet, extensively, for one hundred years. It may be that the Earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling in accordance with some undiscovered law of nature.

...but pollution is never a good thing.

>>1608459

Heavy metals in the oceans is a far greater problem than carbon dioxide emissions, but that's completely lost in all the AGW bullshit.

>>1608477
hey, moderate libertarian, what do you think of this image >>1608477 ?

>>1608459
But regardless of whether or not humans are the sole cause, the fact remains that we are contributing to climate change. And even if it turns out we're not, what then? Should we just forget it? Should we continue merrily dumping shit into the air? Even if we're not contributing to climate change, we're contributing to our own poor health anyway.

Maybe it is something the earth does naturally. But what if it's not? Do we want an unsurvivable atmosphere like Venus'?

The problem is that if we all go buying hybrid cars, we risk a smug storm the likes of which we can only imagine.

>>1608510
buying hybrid cars does not help the environment. buy a small diesel car instead.

>>1606478
>>1606458
"Man doesn't produce enough CO2" wrong:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPA-8A4zf2c

>>1606581
"Water-vapour causes the climate to change more, so CO2 can't be a big factor in climate change" wrong:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAtD9aZYXAs
Everyone in this thread is either retarded or trolled. Climate change has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans, just cold, hard science.
Greenman3610 is a concise video producer on youtube. He refutes Climate Change denial arguments with cold hard facts and evidence. If you think your denial of climate change is unshakable, or you just have your doubts, go here and find a video relevant to the reason you don't feel that Climate Change is relevant or true: http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a

Yeah, you know what else isn't true? DNA. Total myth. Those damn liberal scientists with their myths.

shut the fuck up stalin