/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15875698
>what are tides the 59th thread

You wouldn't see any difference in these pics because it's only supposed to have risen 20cm in the time between them.

Peak potential sea level is 8m higher than it is now - that's how it was 125k years ago between glacial periods. Its level had nowt to do with us then - or now.

>>15875698
>climate science is socialism
>pol
>pol
>pol
science is a socialist field get over it and move on

>>15875698
Reminder that people used to smoke tobacco for centuries with no reported side effects. Only recently jews decided its bad. In reality, it's good for your health.

>>15875698
>climate science is socialism
One of the dumbest things I've ever read but especially considering the sea level looks higher in the bottom picture

geotechnical engineer here. the land rises, because when it's soaked with water it's lighter.

>>15875747

>>15875741
>same time of year, day, and moon. no change!

>>15875792
> science is a socialist field
No it’s not. Science should never be beholden to politics, yet under socialism that’s where the funding comes from.

>>15875883
>One of the dumbest things I've ever read but especially considering the sea level looks higher in the bottom picture
Climate science is cringe and bluepilled but renewable energy is based and redpilled

>>15875821
actually this

>>15876120
Damn, just like that a new bar is set for the dumbest things

>>15876116
Modern science is based on sharing information with others for the benefit of the group - exactly what self titled anti-socialists despise
Ever heard the phrase ‘standing on the shoulders of giants?’
A capitalist version of science would involve making discoveries in secret and telling them to no one for your own individual benefit

>>15876181
>reeeeeee
>muh political ideologies
>>>/pol/

>>15876034
>anon would never lie on the Internet

>>15876594
>t. i have absolutely no self awareness whatsoever because i am too low iq for that

>>15875698
You can clearly see on the far left edge the island is smaller in the bottom pic. Dunno what you're smoking.

>>15876594
Lies? That is the sole prerogative of the warmeristas!

>>15875698

>>15876269
>REEEEEEE SCIENCE IS SOCIALIST
>Actually it should be socialist to be proper science free from financial interest but it's not
>omg muh ideologies gb2/pol/
Why do you people never, ever come in to bitch about the person who comes in to bitch about socialism in the first place, and always tell the person correcting them that "politics don't belong here"?

>>15876920
Yet again another completely unsubstantiated claim regarding relative sea levels. In fact, Plymouth Rock isn't actually mentioned before the 1700s when the story about it was made up, and its surroundings have been altered at various times throughout history, so there is absolutely no way to determine its relative position to the waterline in 1620, nor is there any real significance to it.

>>15876181
>>15876181
>Modern science is based on sharing information with other
Good idea, now explain replication crisis.

>A capitalist version of science would involve making discoveries in secret
Never heard about patents and how they work?

Stop dropping the mic. I can't afford buying new mics all the time.

>>15877178
>now explain replication crisis
By the time of the reveal, 7 of their 20 papers had been accepted for publication, 7 were still under review, and 6 had been rejected. Included among the articles that were published were arguments that dogs engage in rape culture and that men could reduce their transphobia by anally penetrating themselves with sex toys, as well as Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf rewritten in feminist language. One of the published papers in particular had won special recognition from the journal that published it.

>>15877209
That doesn't sound like a replication crisis

>>15877219
Of course it doesn't. Flaws in the peer-review process are but one of many contributing factors. Details of the replication crisis can easily be found on wikipedia. Assuming that you know that, I'll address some likely criticism:
>it's self-corrrecting like science is supposed to work. The problem here is that meanwhile a lot of damage can be done.
>too much focus on mechanisms (publish-or-perish culture etc.) instead of output: I agree with this criticism but there are some obvious examples like SSRI's compared to placebo's and psycho therapy.
Where's smoke there's fire, no? It seems obvious to me that there's a faultty incentive structure compromising all domains of science. Bret Weinstein talks a lot about this to. Is he a grifter? Well it's what you get if you ignore or ban heterodox thinkers instead of debating them.

>>15877262
I only wanted to point out that what you said had very little to do with the question you purported to be answering and now your response to me also has very little to do with that so I think you just like to hear yourself talk
>Bret Weinstein talks a lot about this to. Is he a grifter?
Yeah probably actually
>Debate me bro! Keep debating me because I'll never change my mind! Oh you won't debate me a 131321st time? Are you afraid?
Grow up.

>>15877262
>it's self-corrrecting like science is supposed to work. The problem here is that meanwhile a lot of damage can be done.
Add to this that the self correction process takes too much time and the guilty are able to have it drag on for more than a decade.

This thread is full of retards who can't think for themselves and aren't smart enough to parse the data

>>15876920
Plymouth Rock was moved multiple times. Lmao at your face, chud.