PSA: A list of basic facts

[Anonymous No.9806569]

>The Earth is round. (Yes oblate spheroids are round.)
>The Moon landings happened and space travel is real.
>The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
>Newtonian Mechanics is a correct and incomplete description of reality.
>Quantum Mechanics is a correct and incomplete description of reality.
>Special and General Relativity are correct and incomplete descriptions of reality.
>The Standard Model of particle physics is a correct and incomplete description of reality.
>Big Bang cosmology (The Lambda-CDM model) is a correct and incomplete description of reality.
>Darwinian evolution is a correct and incomplete description of reality.
>Faster-than-light communication is impossible.
>Perpetual motion machines, over-unity devices, energy-from-nothing generators, propulsionless drives and the like can not and will never work.
>Climate change is real, is happening right now, is a real threat and is mostly caused by humans.
>Vaccines are safe and effective.
>"I don't understand this" or "this doesn't make sense to me" are not legitimate criticisms of established scientific theories. It only shows that you don't know what you're talking about.
>Anyone claiming to have an alternative theory to established science should be able to explain why established science seems to give correct answers *and* be able to give a concrete prediction that can be checked by experiment, where it should outperform current scientific theory.

For the know-it-alls who will undoubtedly start arguing about "correct and incomplete": By "correct" we mean that the theory correctly predicts the outcomes of experiments and does not differ appreciably from reality within the theory's domain of validity. "Incomplete" means that the theory's domain of validity does not encompass the entire universe. If you want to argue this, first read this popsci article > http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

[Anonymous No.9806574]

>>9806569
why rationalists love to confuse facts and data?

[Anonymous No.9806637]

>>9806569
>"Incomplete" means that the theory's domain of validity does not encompass the entire universe
isn't this just vacuous then since no theory's domain of validity can be the entire universe (can't be tested outside the observable universe)?

[Anonymous No.9806653]

>>9806569
>Climate change is real, is happening right now, is a real threat
Agreed.
>and is mostly caused by humans.
So you have proof >= 50% of climate change is due to humans. I'll be generous and say that climate change is solely a measure of temperature variations with respect to time. Can you prove that over 50% of this variation is due to humans?

[Anonymous No.9806774]

>>9806569
>http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm
TL;DR: context matters.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/context.html

[Anonymous No.9806781]

Reddit tier post

[Anonymous No.9806788]

>>9806774
>aynrandlexicon.com

[Anonymous No.9806831]

>>9806569
You're saying all this as if science had no political purpose and agenda. That's probably the most laughable about scientists. They do the "thinking" and fanatically believe in it while completing someone else's plan.

[Anonymous No.9806925]

>>9806831
Whatever facilitates what they want to do. However, you're actually quite wrong. Most scientists are the liberalistic optimist moralising types. And routinely take issue with 'someone else's plan'.

[Anonymous No.9806930]

>>9806569
Hey I'm open to non-rational interpretations of reality. Just don't try and tell me they are fucking rational.

[Anonymous No.9808226]

>>9806930
>Hey I'm open to non-rational interpretations of reality.
What do you mean by 'non-rational'?

[Anonymous No.9808997]

>>9806653
If only we had hard evidence available before industrialization. Oh wait we do, they are called ice cores. They go back arbitrarily far and are extremely accurate in conjunction with data from other areas of scientific inquiry. I love knowing that the planet is going to get BTFO because people like you are illiterate.

[Anonymous No.9809705]

Bump

[Anonymous No.9809732]

>>9806569
>implying we can even prove cause and effect
>implying reality

[Anonymous No.9809746]

>>9806569
This post should get stickied desu.

[Anonymous No.9809747]

>>9808226
It's all spaghetti I tell ya

[Anonymous No.9809750]

>>9809732
>philosophy
>sci

[Anonymous No.9809753]

>>9809750
>REEEEEE stop pointing out the flaws in my world view

[Anonymous No.9809754]

>Einstein was a racist

[Anonymous No.9809756]

>>9806569
>THE FIFTEENTH COMMENCEMENTS OF SCIENCE

[Anonymous No.9809761]

This is the most retarded post i've seen on /sci/ in a while

[Anonymous No.9809769]

>>9806653
Its actually more than 100%

[Anonymous No.9809843]

>>9806569
People who make these things a part of their identity are the literal most boring fucks ever I bet you also follow I fucking love science on fb

Imagine finding this at all interesting or worth of your consideration

[Anonymous No.9809864]

>>9806569
this is not the definition of scientism

[Anonymous No.9809870]

>>9809864
>this is not the definition of scientism
What is the definition?

[Anonymous No.9809871]

>>9806569
>The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

stopped reading right there

[Anonymous No.9809872]

>>9809870
Scientism is the thought that science can give moral values.

[Anonymous No.9809874]

>>9806569
>>Faster-than-light communication is impossible.
This kills the sci fi nerd.

[Anonymous No.9809878]

>>9809874
how?

[Miniature Spacecraft No.9809881]

>>9806569
>>Newtonian Mechanics is a correct and incomplete description of reality.
Macro reality
>>Special and General Relativity are correct and incomplete descriptions of reality.
Complete description of reality
>>Big Bang cosmology (The Lambda-CDM model) is a correct and incomplete description of reality.
Wrong
>>Darwinian evolution is a correct and incomplete description of reality.
Complete description of reality
>>Faster-than-light communication is impossible.
Subspace

[Anonymous No.9809899]

>>9806569
t. freshman who read a popsci physics book

[Anonymous No.9809990]

>>9809881
>>Newtonian Mechanics is a correct and incomplete description of reality.
>Macro reality
no

[Anonymous No.9810103]

"Vaccines are safe and effective" is a meaningless focus group tested marketing catchphrase. Modern medicine is largely trash. Some of it is good, some of it is poisonous (and as a result the government has paid millions of dollars in compensation), and an awful lot of it either does nothing or is well outside of its original or provable claims (they let you extend patent ownership when you repurpose the same drug, ie, aspirin as a heart medication). The vaccine issue is not about "vaccination" itself but an attempt by the industry to set up a guaranteed customer base through government mandates and about completely trashing settled science (no vaccines for very young babies) in favor of what's profitable (twelve simultaneous vaccines for newborns plus new vaccines while in utero).
>should I take this vaccine?
I don't know, probably. Depends on what it is, but the issue is about mass-vaxxing young children without parental notification, so you are almost certaibly outside of that group.
>but mr dr professor man in his white labcoat said --
Did he say anything about open borders? Did he say one word? You now know exactly what he feels or understands about controlling the spread of disease.
>but the danger--
There's an enormous danger looming, you can read all about it in the thoroughly mainstream and layperson-friendly book Missing Microbes by CDC doctor Martin Blaser. tldr: too much medicine is as bad as not enough.

[Anonymous No.9810402]

>>9806569
>http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm
what a garbage blog post

[Anonymous No.9810437]

>>9806569
>All these correct and incomplete descriptions of reality.
>XYZ is impossible and will never work.
>By "correct" we mean that the theory correctly predicts the outcomes of experiments and does not differ appreciably from reality within the theory's domain of validity
>popsci
You're an idiot.

[Anonymous No.9810448]

>>9806569
>>9810103
May need a fact check
www.whale.to/vaccines.html

[Anonymous No.9810461]

>>9806569
>The Earth is round.
...Did you mean spherical?
Explain this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssWDiAZY9Hs

[Anonymous No.9810537]

[Anonymous No.9810558]

>>9810402
>what a garbage blog post
Why?

[Anonymous No.9810566]

>>9810461
>bots don't sink under the horizon, just zoom in and they reappear
This doesn't respond to the argument. If you zoom in on a boat traveling away from you, it will sink under the horizon even if you have it enlarged the whole time. The proof that the earth is round is not that the boat shrinks, it's that it sinks.

>curvature calculations
These are calculations of how much height of an object would be obscured if the observer was 0 feet above sea level and the object was standing parallel to the observer. Neither of these assumptions are true when these objects are visible. The observer is at least standing up and the object being viewed is perpendicular to the earth where it stands, not parallel to the viewer. The higher up the observer is, the less height the horizon obscures. Refraction in the atmosphere can also make light curve a little so you can see beyond what the horizon obscures, but this only occurs under the right weather conditions, so it's easy to see when this is true and when it's not. The simple fact that the horizon obscures at all proves the Earth is round.

>The horizon is flat in these pictures
It's actually not, you can see the horizon does not conform to the line drawn on it.

>Water always seeks it's level
Level just means perpendicular to the force of gravity, which is towards the center of the earth.

Basically, flat earth is just incredibly stupid people not understanding basic concepts.

[Anonymous No.9810599]

>>9810566
>ignores the examples of objects that are seen farther away than they should be able to be seen on a spheric earth after factoring height into the calculation, and where height doesn't apply with large bodies of water.
Try again.
'Bedford level experiment' has hundreds on results on youtube, could even do it yourself!

[Anonymous No.9810694]

>>9810599
So flat-earther's can't even read?

>Refraction in the atmosphere can also make light curve a little so you can see beyond what the horizon obscures, but this only occurs under the right weather conditions, so it's easy to see when this is true and when it's not.

All Bedford level experiments where refraction is taken into account show a curved Earth

[Anonymous No.9810708]

>>9806569
>Climate change is real, is happening right now, is a real threat and is mostly caused by humans.
One of these things is not like the others
The proof of its cause by humans is flimsy at best. There is also a large amount of illegitimate science when it comes to studies on climate change and its effects on the environment. For example, Peter Ridd was sacked from the James Cook University for giving criticism of the poor science in one of their climate studies.

[Anonymous No.9811161]

>>9806569
>>Climate change is mostly caused by humans.

[Anonymous No.9811335]

>>9810708
>The proof of its cause by humans is flimsy at best.
Which part is flimsy?

Is it the fundamental chemistry and physics that tells us CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

Is it radiative spectroscopy that tells us how much heat is being emmited by the CO2 in the atmosphere?

Is it the isotope analysis that tells us we are the only net source of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere?

[Anonymous No.9811336]

>>9806569
Climate change may happen but it isn’t as deastic as people make it out to be. We aren’t goimg to die in 20 years unfortunately.

[Anonymous No.9812460]

>>9811335
>>>9810708
>>The proof of its cause by humans is flimsy at best.
>Which part is flimsy?
>Is it the fundamental chemistry and physics that tells us CO2 is a VERY WEAK greenhouse gas?
>IPCC meme graph that greatly understates the Sun's influence as well as greatly underestimates uncertainty in the system.

CO2 temp increase causes (roughly) a mere 1.2 degrees for doubling of concentration. Yeah, that means going to 800 ppm which is virtually impossible. And the actual effect is probably weaker:

The short-term influence of various concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide on the temperature profile in the boundary layer
(Pure and Applied Geophysics, Volume 113, Issue 1, pp. 331-353, 1975)
- Wilford G. Zdunkowski, Jan Paegle, Falko K. Fye

Climate Sensitivity: +0.5 °C

Questions Concerning the Possible Influence of Anthropogenic CO2 on Atmospheric Temperature
(Journal of Applied Meteorology, Volume 18, Issue 6, pp. 822-825, June 1979)
- Reginald E. Newell, Thomas G. Dopplick

* Reply to Robert G. Watts' "Discussion of 'Questions Concerning the Possible Influence of Anthropogenic CO2 on Atmospheric Temperature'"
(Journal of Applied Meteorology, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp. 114–117, January 1981)
- Reginald E. Newell, Thomas G. Dopplick

Climate Sensitivity: +0.3 °C

CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic's view of potential climate change
(Climate Research, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 69–82, April 1998)
- Sherwood B. Idso

Climate Sensitivity: +0.4 °C


Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 1-2, pp. 177-189, January 2009)
- David H. Douglass, John R. Christy

Climate Sensitivity: +1.1 °C

On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
(Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 47, Number 4, pp. 377-390, August 2011)
- Richard S. Lindzen, Yong-Sang Choi

Climate Sensitivity: +0.7 °C

[Anonymous No.9812463]

>>9811335
>>>9810708
>>The proof of its cause by humans is flimsy at best.
>Which part is flimsy?
>Is it radiative spectroscopy that tells us how much heat is being emmited by the CO2 in the atmosphere?
Again, a very weak greenhouse gas. Deal with it. The effect of water vapor is MUCH stronger and almost completely covers the absorption spectrum of CO2.

>Is it the isotope analysis that tells us we are the only net source of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere?
The half-life of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere is only about 5%. Why? Because it's atmospheric half-life is about 5 years. And the ocean is a much larger sink for CO2 than the atmosphere.


And look at the B Bolin, E Eriksson - The atmosphere and the sea in motion, 1959, specifically.
P. 133, "...any excess CO2 put into the atmosphere will ultimately be distributed so that about 11/12 of it goes into the sea..."


Pic related (Jaworski 1997a), almost no correlation between the flux of anthropogenic CO2 and the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.


CRAIG, H. (1957), The Natural Distribution of Radiocarbon and the Exchange Time of Carbon Dioxide Between Atmosphere and Sea. Tellus, 9: 1–17. doi: 10.1111/j.2153-3490.1957.tb01848.x
CO2 Half-life: 7 +/- 3 years


ARNOLD, J. R. (1957), The Distribution of Carbon-14 in Nature. Tellus, 9: 28–32. doi: 10.1111/j.2153-3490.1957.tb01850.x
CO2 Half-life: 10 years

Siegenthaler, Ulrich. "Carbon dioxide: its natural cycle and anthropogenic perturbation." The role of air-sea exchange in geochemical cycling. Springer Netherlands, 1986. 209-247.
CO2 Half-life: 4-9 years.

Craig [1958] 7 +/- 5


Bolin, Bert, and Erik Eriksson. "Changes in the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere and sea due to fossil fuel combustion." The atmosphere and the sea in motion 1 (1959): 30-142.
CO2 Half-life: 5 years

[Anonymous No.9812471]

>>9810708
>The proof of its cause by humans is flimsy at best.
>Which part is flimsy?

>Is it the isotope analysis that tells us we are the only net source of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere?

As described above, the atmospheric half-life of CO2 is only about 5 years and 11/12 of emitted CO2 is absorbed by the (extremely large) waters of the ocean. The ocean, which is not a simple solution DOES NOT obey Henry's law.

And there is almost no correlation between anthropogenic CO2 flux and changes in the atmospheric CO2. Pic related, Jaworski 1997a.


Broecker, W. S. "Radioisotopes and large-scale oceanic mixing." The sea 2 (1963): 88-108. (Recalculated by Broecker & Peng, 1974)
CO2 Half-life: 8 years

Craig, H., The natural distribution of radio-carbon: Mixing rates in the sea and residence time of carbon and water, in Earth Science and Meteritics, F. G. Houtermans Volume, edited by J. Geiss and E.D. Goldberg, pp. 103-114, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1963.
CO2 Half-life: 5-15 years

Keeling, Charles D. "The carbon dioxide cycle: Reservoir models to depict the exchange of atmospheric carbon dioxide with the oceans and land plants." Chemistry of the lower atmosphere. Springer US, 1973. 251-329.
CO2 Half-life: 7 years

[Anonymous No.9812472]

>>9811335
IPCC depiction of logarithmic sensitivity of CO2. A very weak greenhouse gas.

[Anonymous No.9812473]

>>9812463
>The PORTION of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere is only about 5%.

[Anonymous No.9812680]

>>9812463
>>9812471
>I don't know the difference between residence time and lifetime: the post
if you want to talk with the adults, please know what simple terms mean

[Anonymous No.9812772]

>>9806569
I really hate this >scientism fad. It's an absolutely retarded bastardization of a useful word that was once used to describe shitty science along the lines of flat/hollow/whatever earth, now it's just shitposting.

[Anonymous No.9812780]

>>9806569
OP, I genuinely believe that man did land on the moon but the Earth was faked.

[Anonymous No.9812920]

>>9809732
put a loaded, cocked gun in your mouth and pull the trigger, then come back and tell me whether or not cause and effect is real.

[Anonymous No.9813165]

>>9806569
"Climate change" exists, but the idea of "climate change" as it's known in a political sense, is a total fucking farce. Fuck you, OP, you're what's the most wrong with science.
Every time somebody blabs abut fucking "climate change," the only thing I hear is how many people missed out on grants to do research that could actually benefit people rather than some fucking left-wing politician's local rent-seeking project. Fuck you, your mother, and your grandmother.
What's more, advocates of the climate change ideology say bizarre things all the time that mislead the public as to the nature of the scientific method and general methods of inquiry. Ex: "95% of scientists agree, so you are a crackpot if you disagree." There was a time when 95% of scientists believed maggots originated spontaneously from raw meat. Drop dead.
I am an environmentalist as well. I believe it's crucial to preserve natural landscapes and avoid permanently damaging the earth. However, the bizarre hysteria over "climate change" has led to nothing but damage, including the destruction of wilderness areas with dams, the construction of hideously ineffective windmills, &c. The only real solution to the disease of earthbound humanity is to either a. evacuate large numbers of people to extraterrestrial colonies or b. reduce the local population by other means. Burn in twelve hells.
I'm pretty drunk rn

[Anonymous No.9813175]

>>9812920
>implying you can prove any necessary connection between me pulling the trigger and the gun firing
You don't understand the problem of induction do you?

[Anonymous No.9813216]

>>9813175
Surely you can at least empirically test the link, preferably with the gun in your mouth.

[Anonymous No.9813239]

>>9806569

What if we add up all of those models that incompletly describe the universe and see if together actually describe reality in the most complete way that has ever been possible to do?

[Anonymous No.9813247]

>>9813216
>Surely you can at least empirically test the link, preferably with the gun in your mouth.
Ok you *really* don't understand the problem of induction. Why do you think a million experiments would prove anything?

[Anonymous No.9813257]

>>9813175
>>implying you can prove any necessary connection between me pulling the trigger and the gun firing
the patent

[Anonymous No.9813262]

>>9813257
>the patent
Is that a gun part? Don't know about guns. But anyway, just because its made the gun fire in the past, why would it work in the future?

[Anonymous No.9813271]

>>9813262
you must be 3rd world
patent outlines the design and operation of a unique tool/invention/design such that the inventor has sole rights to its use for some period of time

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent

https://patents.google.com/patent/US5448940

thus you have the layout of the design that documents exactly how the depression of the trigger causes the gun to fire

[Anonymous No.9813276]

>>9813271
I see, but just because its made the gun fire in the past, why would it work in the future?

[Anonymous No.9813279]

>>9813276
because that is the intended outcome. the sole thing it's designed to do
only in the case of a malfunction will it not fire

[Anonymous No.9813283]

>>9813279
>because that is the intended outcome. the sole thing it's designed to do
>only in the case of a malfunction will it not fire
How do you know this?

[Anonymous No.9813286]

>>9813165
>What's more, advocates of the climate change ideology say bizarre things all the time that mislead the public as to the nature of the scientific method and general methods of inquiry. Ex: "95% of scientists agree, so you are a crackpot if you disagree." There was a time when 95% of scientists believed maggots originated spontaneously from raw meat.
A 97% scientific consensus means that 97% of published research supports the theory. There is hardly any research that is against the theory and what there is is incredibly low quality. But you already know this since you understand the science, correct?

[Anonymous No.9813291]

>>9813276

What if I manage to reach infinite information about the system to perfectly know what's going to happen everytime I pull the trigger?

Or better, work throught probabilities to know the stimation of failure rate of that gun?

[Anonymous No.9813292]

>>9813286
>There is hardly any research that is against the theory and what there is is incredibly low quality.
What makes the contradicting research low quality?

[Anonymous No.9813293]

>>9813283
see >>9813271
it has no other function but to fire, and the only way for it to fire is for the firing pin to strike the primer of the cartridge, which is initiated by the depressing of the trigger

[Anonymous No.9813295]

>>9813291
>What if I manage to reach infinite information
But you can't can you? The future is unknown, and we have no reason to believe the laws of physics will always apply

[Anonymous No.9813298]

>>9813283
>>only in the case of a malfunction will it not fire
>How do you know this?
if the function of the gun is to fire when the trigger is depressed, by definition only a malfunction could interfere with the outcome of the gun firing by pulling the trigger

[Anonymous No.9813300]

>>9813293
see
>>9813295

[Anonymous No.9813301]

>>9812472
Why do you think logarithmic means weak? The effect of our CO2 emissions is warming an order of magnitude faster than anything in the past 65 million years. If this is "weak" then your definition of weak is worthless.

[Anonymous No.9813302]

>>9813295
>we have no reason to believe the laws of physics will always apply
we have no reason to believe that they won't

[Anonymous No.9813303]

>>9813298
Also see
>>9813295

[Anonymous No.9813306]

>>9813302
So faith then? All swans are white?

[Anonymous No.9813312]

>>9813295
>But you can't can you?

Taking into account the nature of the question, you are asking for a physical phenomenom, so you actually can reduce it to "everything that affects the outcome of the event" and leave anything not related behind. Since the outcome is also based around the observable universe, it's also limited to human perception... and so on and so on... to the point where you should be able to reach infinite information about that precise outcome, because everything that is going to happen has to happen within the human framework or otherwise is of no interest to the experiment.

And the human framework, works with the material universe.

So, I'm not really wondering about the design or practicality of the gun, but rather if the example is rather too simple to be of use for the point that is being tried to make here since it can be reduced enough to achieve something close to: Infinite information throught the perceptible laws of nature and therefore can be predicted with precision when you cut out the gaps of knowledge.

[Anonymous No.9813313]

>>9813306
>All swans are white?
your fallacies are ridiculous. false equivalency
physics is based on our observations and mathematical constructs. there is no indication to suggest that tomorrow gravity will no longer hold us to earth with the same force as it is today. i never said it is not possible that that can't happen, only that there is no reason to believe it.

[Anonymous No.9813347]

>>9813313
No indication that it will or any reason to believe it will other than 'its always happened before'
>The turkey found that, on his first morning at the turkey farm, he was fed at 9 a.m. Being a good inductivist turkey he did not jump to conclusions. He waited until he collected a large number of observations that he was fed at 9 a.m. and made these observations under a wide range of circumstances, on Wednesdays, on Thursdays, on cold days, on warm days. Each day he added another observation statement to his list. Finally he was satisfied that he had collected a number of observation statements to inductively infer that “I am always fed at 9 a.m.”.

>However on the morning of Christmas eve he was not fed but instead had his throat cut.

[Anonymous No.9813351]

>>9813312
>therefore can be predicted with precision when you cut out the gaps of knowledge
No, unless you assume the laws of physics will apply when you pull the trigger, which you have no reason to believe other than faith

[Anonymous No.9813354]

>>9813347
>turkey was less than a year old when taken for Christmas dinner
nope, that would obviously require a mature bird, which would have given mr turkey sufficient time to observe other turkeys being harvested for Christmas and/or Thanksgiving dinner

[Anonymous No.9813368]

>>9813351
>No, unless you assume the laws of physics will apply when you pull the trigger,

But if the laws of physics no longer applies, can I, or any human, observe the event? The only sure knowledge that we have is that we can only perceive the natural world in it's unchanging and predictible version.

[Anonymous No.9813369]

>>9813354
>anon solves the problem of induction by pointing out a flaw in a simple analogy

[Anonymous No.9813374]

haha I love these

reality check, the thread

[Anonymous No.9813378]

>>9813369
well i already solved on /sci/ the millennium prize problem of yang mills and the mass gap like 3 years ago so it wouldn't be the first time

[Anonymous No.9813393]

>>9813368
>The only sure knowledge that we have is that we can only perceive the natural world in it's unchanging and predictible version.
But we don't know the world is unchanging and predictable, that's the problem. We *assume* it is, so we can build rockets and dragon dildos etc, but we can't *know* it is.

[Anonymous No.9813399]

>>9813393
>We *assume* it is, so we can build rockets and dragon dildos etc, but we can't *know* it is.
we know if still is every time we build new things based on old information and it still works.
we know it is predictable, but only in points in time. we don't necessarily know it will always be, but it is in the moments wherein we test that predictability.

[Anonymous No.9813400]

>>9812460
>>Is it the fundamental chemistry and physics that tells us CO2 is a VERY WEAK greenhouse gas?
Yes just look how weak it is.

>IPCC meme graph that greatly understates the Sun's influence as well as greatly underestimates uncertainty in the system.
What evidence tells you this?

>CO2 temp increase causes (roughly) a mere 1.2 degrees for doubling of concentration.
Wrong it's very likely more than double that
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity

And even 1.2 degrees in a few hundred years is faster than anything humans have experienced.

>The short-term influence of various concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide on the temperature profile in the boundary layer
This is irrelevant, by short term they are talking about the seasonal effect. Don't misrepresent sources.

>Questions Concerning the Possible Influence of Anthropogenic CO2 on Atmospheric Temperature
This removes the effect of changes in water vapor and albedo caused by the CO2 increase, So it does not tell us the actual effect of CO2. Again you're misrepresenting your source.

>CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic's view of potential climate change
Debunked: https://www.itsnotnova.wordpress.com/2012/04/02/climate-sensitivity-idso-idsnot/

>Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
E&E is a fake journal, give me peer reviewed papers.

>On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
Debunked: https://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzen-choi-2011-party-like-2009.html

[Anonymous No.9813421]

>>9812463
>Again, a very weak greenhouse gas. Deal with it.
You can call it weak all you want, it doesn't change the fact that our CO2 emissions are responsible for the warming trend.

>The effect of water vapor is MUCH stronger and almost completely covers the absorption spectrum of CO2.
And what causes water vapor concentration to change? Hint: temperature change. What caused the temperature change? Hint: CO2 emissions. Water vapor is not a radiative forcing, it is an amplifier of the radiative forcing.

>The PORTION of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere is only about 5%.
How does this respond to the fact that man is the only net source of CO2? Natural sources and sinks churn out way more CO2 than man but they absorb even more than they churn out. So of course we only have a small percentage of the CO2 since natural sources are absorbing most of it. The amount of CO2 had nothing to do with the anthropogenic share of the flux. Why don't you try learning some basic logic instead of wasting my time?

[Anonymous No.9813443]

>>9813399
>we know if still is every time we build new things based on old information and it still works.
>we know it is predictable
We don't know. All we are doing is counting all the white swans we can see and affirming our belief that all swans are white. Meanwhile, Captain Cook sails ever closer to Australia...

[Anonymous No.9813452]

>>9813443
if all swans that are identified to exist at some point in time are white, you can conclude that the next time you see a swan, it will likely be white.
that is not a guarantee, only a reasonable assumption based on historical data.
it only means that we do not know that any swans but white swans exist, not that no swans but white swans exist

[Anonymous No.9813497]

>>9813452
>only a reasonable assumption based on historical data.
Yep, that's all we've got. And we're assuming the data was correct and our memory is accurate.

[Anonymous No.9813525]

>>9806569
>Vaccines are safe and effective
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal_controversy

[Anonymous No.9813547]

>>9806569
>Climate change is real, is happening right now, is a real threat and is mostly caused by humans.
Don't even try. 4chan is a far right bastion nowadays, we'll always have climate change deniers here because the facts are detrimental to their political ideology.

[Anonymous No.9813565]

The hubris from those that think we have everything figured out.

Top mainstream academics can't even explain how a simple magnet works. They would like you to believe it requires a mathematician.

Modern astronomy is gravity-centric even when we witness electrical phenomenon everywhere such as plasmas. If the mainstream is correct about the Sun, why is the SAFIRE Project succeeding where they have utterly failed? The electric sun model survives.

Whistleblower from the CDC would disagree with OP on vaccines and he has documented evidence of crimes.

Conclusion: OP is definitely a fag.

[Anonymous No.9813581]

>>9813295
>>>/reddit/

[Anonymous No.9813598]

>Quantum Mechanics is a correct and incomplete description of reality

Three words: Pilot Wave Theory

Nikola Tesla challenged Einstein's relativity. Tesla's luminiferous ether gravity model closely resembles pilot wave theory.

[Anonymous No.9813857]

>>9813565
>SAFIRE Project
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.9813871]

>>9813598
>Tesla's luminiferous ether gravity model closely resembles pilot wave theory.
Nice LARP, I almost believed you were a Teslafag but you took it a little over the top.

[Anonymous No.9813891]

>>9813565
the hubris of those that think they have it figured out and it's being suppressed by the mainstream. Electromagnetism is in the electron and ferromagnetism is a result of specific valence shell configurations. Astronomy isn't gravity specific all imaging is done with electromagnetism it hasn't even been until recently we've experimentally shown gravity waves exist so sure we can start doing gravity imaging with a bigger LIGO. Like holy fuck man yeah electromagnetism is everywhere and plays a big role in stars which is why idk they give off so much fucking light and we study solar flares and sun spots and shit. electric universe is fucking gay they pretend we aren't paying any attention to electromagnetism. and vaccines? they aren't safe for some which is why there is a vaccine court and it's important to maintain herd immunity so that immunologically vulnerable people can still not get polio even without the polio vaccine. You wanna run an experiment in the 21st century and see what happens with a population with no vaccines? It's funny because you think it'd be an ethical study.
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.9814426]

>>9809769
>no source
Discarded.

[Anonymous No.9814451]

>>9806637
did you see any "complete" theory in the OP?

[Anonymous No.9814461]

>>9814451
>did you see any "complete" theory in the OP?
what's the point of calling a theory incomplete if they're all trivially incomplete?

[Anonymous No.9814516]

>>9809874
Well does it include wormholes? You're not travelling faster than light but you are subverting the normal distance you'd need to travel to get info from one point to another.

So assuming near-infinite energy for a rocket is no problem, if you put a person on a rocket and accelerate such that he feels 1g of acceleration constantly, how far could he travel in 1, 2, 5, 10 years of time as felt in his reference frame? Accelerating forwards for 50% of the journey and flipping around and accelerating backwards for the other 50%. Anyone wanna do the relativity calculations? I'm not too familiar with using Lorentz transformations just yet.

[Anonymous No.9814540]

>>9813497
So? Do you suggest to assume nothing and live in disbelief of everything just because we can't know everything about everything at every moment forever? That'd be just silly.

[Anonymous No.9814557]

>>9814540
>anon solves the problem of induction by calling it silly

[Anonymous No.9814569]

>>9809754
Ita called xenophobe when ur a jew.

[Anonymous No.9814570]

>>9814557
I'm not solving it.
I'm just not going to address it. It's moot. You can live by it if you want, but I sure won't.

[Anonymous No.9814582]

>>9814570
It's not something you're supposed to live by. It's an awareness of the limitations of our knowledge and the limitations of the scientific method to give us knowledge.

[Anonymous No.9814584]

>>9814516
Just found an online calculator, apparently it would only take a little over 7 years to reach the Trappist-1 system (40ly away) going by the spacecraft's clock (42 years by Earth clocks). However, your speed would reach a maximum of 0.99893, which would not be nice for any dust you run into.

[Anonymous No.9814587]

>>9814582
And I choose to ignore that. That's the ultimate solution to all problems. Ignore it, power through it, make everyone else see you're right, or die trying.

[Anonymous No.9814599]

>>9806574
not real ones.

[Anonymous No.9814620]

>>9814587
>I choose to ignore that
Ah, the legendary 'Sam Harris manoeuvre'

[Anonymous No.9814685]

>>9814620
It works!

[Anonymous No.9814714]

>>9809761
This is the most retarded post i've seen on /sci/ in a while

[Anonymous No.9814740]

>>9814461
>what's the point of calling a theory incomplete if they're all trivially incomplete?
Because that's how most idiots think they know better than science.

>Evolution is wrong because it doesn't explain abiogenesis.
> Newtonian mechanics is wrong and useless because it was superceded.
> Big Bang Cosmology is wrong because it doesn't explain where the universe came from.
> Quantum Mechanics is wrong because it doesn't explain what particles are.

The illusion that a scientific theory needs to be complete is quite pervasive among laymen.

[Anonymous No.9814944]

>>9814426
>He doesn't know how to image search
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

[Anonymous No.9815027]

The fact you even have to say this is embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.9815085]

>>9815027
I know, right? This should be the common baseline from which to start a sensible conversation about any scientific topic. But sadly, public discourse and public knowledge of science has eroded to such a point that even this very short list of absolutely basic facts that have no reason to be contested are the focal point of "controversies".

[Anonymous No.9815088]

>>9815027
>>9815085
And the result is that almost every conversation is derailed by an idiot who can't talk at the level of the adults, and thus forcibly drags the conversation down into the muck by being loud and obnoxious enough.

[Anonymous No.9815158]

>>9814740
>Because that's how most idiots think they know better than science.
What do you mean?

[Anonymous No.9815188]

>>9815158
They think that if they can find one thing that a scientific theory can't explain, that they've disproven the entire thing.

[Anonymous No.9815260]

>>9815158
>>9815188
And they will often point to something that the theory is not built to explain in the first place.

[Anonymous No.9815388]

>>9810694
Calling up surveyors asking if they take curvature into account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubNICy7RoaY

[Anonymous No.9815407]

>>9815388
Explain this globecucks.

[Anonymous No.9815417]

Kansas is flatter than a pancake, gravity not working there? Don't worry it's probably just dark matter.

[Anonymous No.9815442]

>>9806569
>correct and incomplete description of reality

Underage popsci reading faggot detected. Science is about modeling reality. It's not about being correct or complete but usefulness in a domain of parameters.

[Anonymous No.9815502]

>>9815407
What for? You're too set in your belief to absorb the answer, or having too much fun being a troll to take the answer seriously.
inb4 "Oh, you don't have an answer, globetard." Yeah, yeah. Not biting.

[Anonymous No.9815534]

>>9810694
>implying the "bending of light through a medium" can account for thousands of feet of curvature that are missing on relatively small scale segments.
So, light is magic. However it works must automatically support the heliocentric model, at any cost of absurdity.

I'll stick to observable, testable, natural science for my world view, and leave the extraordinary claims for the sci-fi genre.

[Anonymous No.9815542]

>>9815442
>For the know-it-alls who will undoubtedly start arguing about "correct and incomplete": By "correct" we mean that the theory correctly predicts the outcomes of experiments and does not differ appreciably from reality within the theory's domain of validity.

Your criticism is literally already addressed in the OP. Learn to read.

[Anonymous No.9815580]

>>9815534
light can bend over a distance of 100' on a hot highway. everyone can see this plain as day with their own eyes. do you think roads don't exist or something??? looks like your hoax was disproved with common sense yet again.

[Anonymous No.9815651]

>>9815417
Do you see the air shimmering when it's zoomed in? That is a huge pocket of warm air that is refracting the light.

>Kansas is flatter than a pancake
"Flat" in this context just means that the elevation is the same everywhere. A perfect sphere is perfectly "flat" since its elevation is equal everywhere.

Use your brain.

[Anonymous No.9815655]

>>9815534
>I'll stick to observable, testable, natural science for my world view,

LOL! Good one!

[Anonymous No.9815659]

>>9815388
>surveyors have maps and instruments that take curvature effects into account for them so they don't have to do the calculations longhand
>therefore it's a hoax!
I know flatheads love to grasp at straws but this is pathetic

>>9815417
>Kansas is flatter than a pancake
irrelevant, since elevation is measured above sea level (which is an approximately spherical datum).
also, by pancake standards, EVERYTHING is flatter unless you're in the Himalayas or something
>http://mentalfloss.com/article/58976/kansas-really-flatter-pancake
pancakes actually have a hell of a lot of surface relief.

>>>9815534
>there are people who look vaguely like the Challenger astronauts
>therefore it was all a hoax!
this is laughably easy to disprove. first off, two of the purported false identities are just photos of siblings of the deceased. secondly, the others look nothing like the astronauts (in terms of bone structure); all they share is a name or two and similar ethnicity. thirdly, the purported false identities all have long records (paperwork and people who know them) going back decades before the Challenger disaster.
>https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/false-crew-members-of-1986-space-shuttle-challenger-are-still-alive/
you are just a retard

[Anonymous No.9815685]

Scientism creates and maintains a false metaphysical reality based on science fiction masquerading as theoretical science masquerading as natural science.

Natural science is true science, studying the fundamental properties and behaviour of physical reality as experienced with our 5 senses. It is as objective, clear and simple as possible, and can be observed, tested, measured and repeated, forming the base of all theoretical science (or should be in our case).

Theoretical science turns the "what" into "how". From the physical to the metaphysical. Theoretical science should be called metaphysics because that's really what it is. At best it can map its concepts to physical reality in a useful way, but its concepts can never be claimed to actually exist physically, or scientifically - yet Scientism will claim they can and do.

Just as religions convince people that metaphysical concepts like heaven and hell exist, so too can Scientism convince people that metaphysical concepts like black holes or particles also exist. A Christian believes earth was created in 7 days because they read it in a book, and their preachers preach about it. A follower of Scientism believes the big bang happened because they read it in a book, and their professors profess about it. At that point it's no better than science fiction.

[Anonymous No.9815763]

>>9806569
Couldn't you say this more generally as: science should tell us about the IS and philosophy should tell us about the OUGHT?

[Anonymous No.9815845]

>>9815685
tldr: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgk8UdV7GQ0

[Anonymous No.9815865]

>>9815659
>citing "snopes", two CIA assets who first were convicted of fraud
Must feel good to look ignorant anonymously, much better than actually conducting some rudimentary research before attempting to fire back with invalid, premade 'arguments'.
The fact that people with the same names, faces, and in one case, the same voice, as the "dead astronauts", who just so happen to work for government sponsored institutions... Just another goof in world of pure coincidence, as logic obviously dictates.
https://youtu.be/4TJVhdPtEkE

[Anonymous No.9815872]

>>9815865
>citing random youtube cranks with invalid premade "arguments" but attacking snopes
>not responding to the facts presented
You are mentally ill, seek help.

[Anonymous No.9815882]

>>9815872
>ignores the content of the post, replies with irrelevant name calling
>accuses other party of not responding to the "facts" presented, while doing exactly this
Not exactly worth your salt, are you shill?
https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/tag/barbara-and-david-mikkelson/
http://asheepnomore.net/2013/10/26/snopes-gets-snoped/

[Anonymous No.9815900]

>>9815882
What content? The snopes article already debunks everything.

>https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/tag/barbara-and-david-mikkelson/
Ah so now we've gone from "CIA assets" to wrote an article that says Turkey did not give weapons to ISIS and "convicted of fraud" to accused of embezzlement by an ex-wife. Thank you for admitting that you lied.

[Anonymous No.9815910]

>>9815882
>Stanley Kubrick with NASA officials in England
Yes, you cracked the conspiracy! NASA faked 2001: A Space Odyssey. Now the world knows that this "documentary" is pure fiction.

[Anonymous No.9815992]

It always makes me chuckle to see the flatEarth / conspiracy-theorist trolls being so successful at triggering newbies who've never encountered folks who make shit up to piss them off.

You're being trolled, guys! OP was very likely a troll to get the ball rolling.

But I get it. It's really hard to pass up sanctimoniously correcting them. My advice: remember it's make-believe.

Save your energy for the school boards and city councils when this shit pops up and society *really* needs your input. And then make sure you do it calmly and correctly.

[Anonymous No.9816007]

>>9815992
Like this?

[Anonymous No.9816009]

>>9815992
>OP was very likely a troll to get the ball rolling.
I'm not a "troll".

[Anonymous No.9816012]

>>9816007

[Anonymous No.9816017]

>>9816009
Then you opened it up for trolls.

[Anonymous No.9816028]

redpill: sea levels are rising because of international efforts to stop Japan from whale hunting

[Anonymous No.9816049]

>>9806569
>within the theory's domain of validity
Which is a fancy way of admitting it works right up until it doesn't.

[Anonymous No.9816054]

>cant find dark matter
WHOOPS

[Anonymous No.9816081]

>>9815865
>anyone I don't like is a CIA shill
>all white people look and sound the same
>people resembling their dead siblings = proof of conspiracy

have you considered the fact that if The Gubbernment were to fake the death of someone prominent, they would give them a fake identity with a different name? do you just think the Massive Global Conspiracy is cartoonishly stupid or something?

[Anonymous No.9816086]

>>9816081
>>anyone I don't like is a CIA shill
>>all white people look and sound the same
>>people resembling their dead siblings = proof of conspiracy
Who are you quoting?

[Anonymous No.9816087]

>>9815900
conspiracyfags can't explain this
they want you to accept their claims and not think independently
ironic.jif

[Anonymous No.9816726]

>>9806569
>Correct description
Dud. It's a fucking model