/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2553542]

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/17/montana-global-warming-bill/

A bill has been introduced in the Montana state legislature to declare global warming a “natural occurrence and human activity has not accelerated it,” and that it is “beneficial to the welfare and business climate of Montana.”

Game over, environmentalfags. Law > science.

[Anonymous No.2553551]

>implying that the Earth bouncing back from the last Ice Age is caused by humans OR bad
Not you OP, Al Gore and his friends.

[Anonymous No.2553559]

logic? reasoning?

FUCK YOU FAGGOT; LAW!

[Anonymous No.2553568]

>>2553559
I think OP is saying that law has final say over what happens. Either way, you sound like you have posterior pain.

[Anonymous No.2553567]

>America

[Anonymous No.2553574]

Why is it so hard to see that it's a combination of the two. The earth is going into a natural period of slightly elevated temperatures and mankind's CO2 emissions (and some other minor stuff) is accelerating the process.

This doesn't mean we shouldn't actively try to reduce the heating. Global heating will turn into a problem even if it's caused naturally.

[Anonymous No.2553575]

i need evidence its a global shift as much as i need evidence for it being mans intervention.

not just some wordy script that a bunch of people agreed sounded correct.

that sound like Scientology to me. I argue its a religion even though its not but win the legal battle for it anyway.

[Anonymous No.2553578]

what, pray tell, does montana think this puny state declaration would do?

make them exempt from federal carbon tax?

TAX>"law"

montana pwned

btw, i don't give a shit if global warming is real or who/what caused it

[Anonymous No.2553581]

>>2553574
It's a combination but mankind's contribution is more than just negligible. It's not even measurable.

[Anonymous No.2553588]

>>2553578
>federal tax
Cap and Trade didn't get through and the EPA will have a tough time doing it anyway since the House is controlled by the Republicans now and they'll cut the EPA's funding.

[Anonymous No.2553603]

>>2553588

true, but still doesn't answer the question here>>2553578

this is the kind of political propaganda posturing that ameri-tards love, makes them feel like they still have a say in gov't

[Anonymous No.2553631]

>>2553603
Yes it does. There won't be a federal carbon tax. Also, it gets attention and might get other states to do the same. The idea is to tell more voters that global warming isn't what Al Gore would have us believe and fighting it is pointless. The idea is to have fewer voters for politicians who want to pass legislation like Cap and Trade.

[OPHERE No.2553646]

>>2553581
>>2553575
>>2553551

Sigh. global warming deniers. On my /sci/

The article was put up to share my dismay for the embarassing state of anti-science and anti-global warming that America adopts.

[Anonymous No.2553647]

>>2553631

question you still have not answered tard:

WHAT DOES MONTANA THINK THIS "LAW" DOES?

[Anonymous No.2553653]

>>2553631

wait, so you're admitting the law is propaganda?

ok then, we agree

[Anonymous No.2553661]

>>2553647
Block attempts to pass laws justified by anthropomorphic global warming.

[Anonymous No.2553666]

>>2553646
So skepticism of claims made by people with a lot to gain and nothing to lose is anti-science.

[Anonymous No.2553674]

>>2553653
>admitting
There's nothing to admit. It's a declaration. What else does a declaration do but declare.

[Anonymous No.2553680]

>>2553661

so now your dumbass can explain how any state law ever blocked the federal gov't from passing any law it wanted to?

[OPHERE No.2553713]

>>2553666

Skepticism is one thing. But skepticism requires reasoning and demonstratively showing why the information or theory is flawed and how it can be improved, if possible.

go get 'em, /sci/bro

Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural practices, and other activities.
The report, which is about the effects that climate change is having in the United States, also says:

Climate-related changes have already been observed globally and in the United States. These include increases in air and water temperatures, reduced frost days, increased frequency and intensity of heavy downpours, a rise in sea level, and reduced snow cover, glaciers, permafrost, and sea ice. A longer ice-free period on lakes and rivers, lengthening of the growing season, and increased water vapor in the atmosphere have also been observed. Over the past 30 years, temperatures have risen faster in winter than in any other season, with average winter temperatures in the Midwest and northern Great Plains increasing more than 7°F. Some of the changes have been faster than previous assessments had suggested.

http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf

[Anonymous No.2553709]

>>2553680
>implying the federal government has passed a law
>implying the law wasn't intended as an example for other states to follow
>implying if 2/3 of the states pass a law about it it won't be a proposed amendment to the constitution
OK seriously, anybody who doesn't understand how American government works shouldn't be trying to argue about it.

[Anonymous No.2553756]

Better hope we don't have a forest fire this year, otherwise it would be equal to the total combined human carbon contribution to the atmosphere

[OPHERE No.2553792]

>>2553756

>Better hope we don't have a forest fire this year, otherwise it would be equal to the total combined human carbon contribution to the atmosphere

>30% increase in CO2 gas since the industrial revolution.

http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications/pdf_files/OccPapers/OP-038.pdf

>Biggest recorded wildfire in history.
>amounted to 30% of the CO2 emmissions from human activity in 1 year.

[Anonymous No.2553804]

This is the best argument against democracy right here.

[Anonymous No.2553822]

>>2553709

what you're trying to imply is that if every state passed this law, then it would over-ride a federal carbon tax(if such a tax was passed)

it would not, some law could, but it sure as hell is not this law, this law is the same bullshit propaganda that ameri-tards love to believe in to make them feel like they have a say in gov't

[Anonymous No.2553827]

>>2553804
Explain your reasoning.

[Anonymous No.2553879]

http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54?blend=1&ob=4#p/c/0/52KLGqDSAjo

[Anonymous No.2553896]

>>2553827
I think he means it's showing how people are unable to make rational decisions and a minority in power would perform better.

[Anonymous No.2553913]

>>2553896
If people are unable to make rational decisions, whether government is controlled by one or many matters very little.

[Anonymous No.2553952]

>>2553913
uneducated* people
that said, we would do several metric fucktons better with a sufficiently programmed computer running things

[Anonymous No.2553964]

>>2553952
It's the "sufficiently programmed" part that seems to be the hangup. The time will come.

[Anonymous No.2553976]

I've ceased to care about this shit and I just want the civil war to happen already so we can get this shit over with.

Hopefully I'll survive, but who gives a shit.

[Anonymous No.2553977]

>>2553581
oh look guys, we've got the answer here

someone knows irrefutably all the facts about global warming

can you please show us the reproducible process that led you to determining these "facts"

[Anonymous No.2553983]

>>2553964
Unfortunately, it does, and the sooner the better.
That said, humans probably won't like it when the machine recommends they either 1) build more of it and kill themselves, 2)use LSD constantly or 3) revert to communism to maximize efficiency

[Anonymous No.2553998]

>>2553977
You can never prove a point by going "hurr durr that's wrong because you have no evidence for your point" when you don't provide any.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ is probably the source you're looking for. Try to argue better in future, because you could end up convincing people they are right by making bad arguments if you don't.

[Anonymous No.2554032]

>>2553983
Hollywood's portrayal of computers is not at all accurate.

[Anonymous No.2554084]

>>2554032
no, but this is what they'd logically do. If it's in the movies it's because it's "woo scary" to people who like not having to think about things.

[Anonymous No.2554122]

>>2554084
>no, but this is what they'd logically do

Why is that?

[Anonymous No.2554171]

Texas and Kentucky shoud outlaw evolution.

[Anonymous No.2554274]

>>2554122
>build more
humans cannot perform logical operations, or do things in an exact way, or store information perfectly. Machines such as our robot overlord can, hence are more efficient. If the aim of the machine is to increase efficiency and logical validity, then more machines will be significantly more efficient than more humans.
>LSD
if the goal isn't efficiency, but instead happiness, then it is possible to bypass the need to use the environment to trigger dopamine release by using drugs to make yourself feel happy. Using drugs is faster and more effective than genuine interaction, therefore achieves this goal better
3) if the aim is to achieve efficiency AND happiness while not killing humans or dosing them up, then communism is a better system. The capitalist system relies on some people being constantly exploited while others aren't, which generates unhappiness, and also works on the principal you can manipulate people to give as much as they can for things they want. In communism, resources simply get transferred to those in need. Of course, with an efficient computer controlling resource allocation, un-necessary amounts of resources would be blocked, so greed wouldn't allow exploitation.