/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11553324
So people hate Jews because some Jews think people shouldn't shop deceptively?

>>11397777
>His argument is based on the historical temperature differences.
Which ones? The ones that happened over millions of years?

>>11365983
Not an argument, you lose. Thanks for admitting evolution is real, speciation is real, and you share a common ancestor with chimps.

>>11361855
>Human caused warming may have actually saved us from an ice age
LOL that's is like saying eating a big meal tonight will keep you from starving in 10 years.

>>11329629
>they would be traveling at light speed

>>11329447
Nice delusions. It's a shame you have nothing to back them up.

>>11312691
>You can't, but that still doesn't make an explanation a description.
Give an explanation that's not a description then.

>Well then stop replying to me then, batman.
Sure, as soon as you give up on your schizo shitposting.

>And a broken clock is right twice a day. I too can state the obvious.
Apparently it's not obvious since you won't accept the numerous tests of general relativity as proof.

>Which is what I did not ask for. I asked for "actual spacetime".
Spacetime curvature is actual spacetime, so I'm not sure what you're whining about. Actually I am sure, you will just complain about any irrelevant thing because you are in denial of reality.

>Your distinction without a difference doesn't make sense.
I didn't make a distinction, I said they're the same.

>Unless you want to explain what "Spacetime" is.
I did, what specifically do you need explained?

>Which is literally another way of saying "this is a description of what spacetime does"
Yes, and observing whether something which spacetime does actually occurs is a test for whether spacetime is real. Fucking dense retard.

>Which is a description that uses the currently unexplained "spacetime" as the explanation as to why it is described to do this.
Yes, that's how models work.

>which is an explanation....of what duties the probe was programmed to describe(measure).
Yes, so what?

>So which is it?
Both. Are you seriously this illiterate?

>refer to the beginning of >>11312443
Refer to my response.

>>11297096
>To any normal person, the official budget of the government would be sufficient proof to show that a government service has received less funding.
Are you seriously still trying to equivocate? I already explained how what you showed is insufficient. Instead of providing a counterargument or admitting you made a mistake, you are acting as if I never explained the flaw. If you're incapable of arguing honestly then I'll just take your refusal to do so as an admittal that your claim was incorrect.

>To you, no proof exists.
I don't know if proof exists, because you have yet to show it. Whining about it and projecting your inability to argue in good faith onto me doesn't change the fact that the burden of proof is on you.

>And on this fact alone you think you've won the argument.
No, I won the argument because you refuse to provide one.

>In your universe, can any proof of the firefighters receiving less money even exist?
Are you trying to imply that it's my fault if the claim you made is bullshit? If you don't know how to prove your own claim, why did you make it? You're truly pathetic. Why don't you do some research like I did? The article I posted says that the 2018-2019 budget includes more than $40 million in retrospective reimbursements. So that means the initial budget for that year was around $80 million - $40 million dollars = $40 million. This is less than the initial budget for the 2019-2020 financial year. Now I'll let you use your vast intellect to form the conclusion. Is that a cut?

>If official government sources aren't enough then what is?
It has nothing to do with whether the sources are official, you fucking lying sack of shit. Do you really think constantly misrepresenting the argument is helping you?

>>11251452
A FUNCTION IS A RULE THAT MAPS EVERY ELEMENT IN ONE SET TO AN ELEMENT IN A SECOND SET YOU FUCKING NIGGER. HOLY FUCK IF YOU HAVEN'T EVEN TAKEN A FUCKING ANALYSIS CLASS THEN FUCKING FUCK OFF UNTIL YOU HAVE.

>>11144961
>>using science to answer inquiries of philosophy/theology
Neither of these can answer any question. You are confusing the question being invalid with the question being in a different domain.

>>11141979
triggered take-off-tard

>>11108096
>Workshare on the programme was a politically charged matter. Tasks were to be distributed between nations:
>the United Kingdom would provide the first stage (derived from the Blue Streak missile), >France would build the second and
>Germany would construct the third stage [24][21]
>It would carry a satellite, which would be designed and manufactured in Italy, and weighted roughly a ton.
>The telemetry was to be developed by the Netherlands,
>while Belgium was to develop the downrange ground guidance system.[21]


>By 1969, the ELDO was beginning to realize that dividing work up by country led to not enough overall collaboration and had resulted in a disjointed framework of planning. This disjointed structure has been accredited as having been responsible for the lack of successful launch. In affect, there had been no single authority or group that was entirely responsible or in control of Europa. Notably, in November 1971, the West Germans publicly blamed the failure and explosion of Europa 2 upon immense divisions within ELDO.

el autismo...

>>11074897
>A lot of experimental physics is entirely based on eyewitness testimony

>>11072282
>Nowhere does it use the word “exact,”
Nowhere did I say it did.

>nowhere does it state that a probability distribution model is predictive.
It does:

"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions."

>It says quite flatly that the long-term future climate state cannot be predicted. That doesn’t mean “but we can predict it with our statistics.”
Yes, now read the sentence directly after, where it does.

>It does NOT affirm that the future state of climate can be predicted with statistical analysis
That's literally what it does in the report. It presents a CMIP model to predict the probability distribution of the climate. You couldn't be more wrong than this.

>>11061573
>The problem is people becoming Americans and therefore becoming pigs rather than Americans being pigs

>>11050164
>The medieval warm period happened globally
>Africa and Arabia are global
All you have to do to show it's global is show global temperature. But all you can do is cut the data up and cherrypick.

>so it doesn't matter.
>it doesn't matter that my data is made up and doesn't reflect reality
So you aren't going to post that image again right?

>>11045023
>I said climate change not ozone depletion.
So you agree that ozone depletion is a socialist hoax?

>If you are forced to pay for a service you never wanted then that seems pretty tyrannical if you ask me.
Then everything the government does is tyrannical to you. Why is solving global warming "socialist"? Just argue that the entire government should be abolished.

>you're wrong! That study was even less scientific then you first thought!
How is it less scientific? And why are you ignoring every other study that confirmed it, including direct polls? Because you have no response. What a retard.

>>11015728
>it's almost like even "deniers" have stricter publishing standards
>if you refuse to eat shit you must have good taste.

So to summarize, your graph is cherrypicking by ignoring all recent high sensitivity studies, which would only be done on purpose in order to produce a downwards trend. It cites non-published fake studies to further push the trend downward. And your only response is to project your misrepresentations without any basis.

Anything else you fucking pathetic shill?

>>11012518
>gif shows Lindzen's model failing while real models succeed
>responds with Lindzen saying the models are bad

>>10984189
>If you ponder these 'black projects' for a moment you will likely admit that they could very well be capable of interplanetary travel.

>>10891560
5G schizo rekt

>>10867463
Only a completely delusional retard would think this idiotic strawman exercise is working. Please keep making a fool of yourself. Please post more bottom of the barrel pseudoscience. This is hilarious.

>>10862217
sls fag here but i have to admit to keking heartily.
on a serious note a lot of you underestimate the massive performance differential between FH and SLS for high energy trajectories with relatively light payloads. nobody is throwing up 50 tons to LEO (useless and wouldn't even fit in the fairing) despite spacex fanboys constantly circlejerking leo numbers. SLS may be a boomer design but it is a solid one that will get a good launch cadence going assuming the senate keeps throwing money at it.

>>10801862
>have a genuine conversation
>with a femoid
You really are a kissless handholdless virgin then. By all means, give it a try, some of them have personalities and interests beyond getting bought shit and watching soap operas while they wait to get pregnant. But hoooly shit anon, you're a lucky duck if you find her, even among stem chicks.

Repeat, if you find a woman who's not functionally retarded, and who is of the same race, you lock that shit down.