/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4400022
according to the koran a believer can not be friends with a non believer. It was kinda of a joke at how a person that calls themselves a muslim would make friends with a non-believer.

I really dislike the hypocrisy of religious people that don't follow their own scriptures.

>>4399948
And you think America didn't do this on purpose? A corrupt system can always be submitted to 'regime change' when they stop cooperating.

Your politics is shaped by what you believe and your philosphy, I don't know anything that influences these more than religion. They shouldn't be interchangeable, but they are in many parts of the world. Hell scriptures contain an entire judicial process among other things.

Read the koran, it's like the bible in reverse. It starts out nice (ish) and gets slowly more aggressive, the issue is unlike the bible the koran has its method of interpretation built in, later passages over ride previous ones.

I am basing my perception of a religion on its scriptures and the members of that religion that I have met. I do the same for christianity, and buddhism. If you claim to follow a book that says that because I don't believe we can't be friends then I don't want to be friends with them either.

Call it prejudice if you want, but I am trained to treat the world as isotopic, yes my experiences are anecdotal and seld supporting, but then again science is just anecdotes independantly verified.

>>4399890
We all know america was securing it's oil supplies, but regime change was there cover plan, so even though it is a farce it still happened.

The people that flew planes into buildings killing over 3000 people did so for religious reasons. 3000 people died for somesones beliefs. People continue to blow themselves up in market places for religious reasons. I think not being a fan of a religion (or its interpretation) that can be used to kill people is allowed.

>>4399870
He hated islam, he was all for that being stamped out, he was also of the belief that a regime change was neccesary, he was for that war. The only reason it got so much attention was because everyone else was too busy accusing america of being imperialist.

>>4399833
You keep using the present tense, he's dead, the only thing he is being ash somewhere, he donated his body to medical science.

He was severely antiwar all the way up till the bosnian war. So I don't know where you get this image of him from.

He was a commentator, and like all commentators opinionated as fuck. He hated the culture advocated by the koran and wasn't quiet about it. He debated well though.

>>4399808
he's also dead.

>>4399805
>Doesn't know the difference between science and the scientific approach.

What's wrong with the statement?

They claim the koran protects them, well claims must be verified, he also makes a prediction of the outcome of the experiment. It is a scientific approach to a stupid claim.

>>4395643
Species is not whether two can breed, it's whether the offspring of the pairing can breed. Ligers cannot, neither can Tions, or mules.

Malty cheddar

/sci/ used to get in rage spirals about these threads, all that happened was we lost the trolls, kinda. The threads used to be started by people saying stuff like athiest 0 christians 1, shit like that.

My personal beliefs, shouldnt really matter but here they are. I do not believe in a god or a greater being, and the idea of one terrifies me. No god preposed by religious scripture exists, claims made in said scripture can be disproven so end of. The idea of a powerful being starting it off though can unfortunately not be proven either way. Occam's Razor sure, but still. We could all be in a simulation, and the idea that something created us all and doesn't give a shit, terrifies me. Even if it doesn't know we exist, what if it accidentally destroys us all.

But yeah, I don't like organised religion or even the concept of a god. I especially don't like those that proclaim to be christian, because that directly contradicts teachings of their supposed messiah.

the bible defines it as when there is blood in the body, so week 4.

is evolution a social construct?

The science is there to back it up but those without knowledge have turned into a political and moral weapon.

The financial loss to deal with it doesn't really make it worth while. Know why?

There is no real reason that we should care about any other life on this planet. Elevated CO2 concentrations in the ocean are already destroying marine ecosystems, the warming is throwing terrestrial systems off as well. As long as we keep some bees alive we will survive. The corporations would benefit from the complete collapse of the planets ecosystem because they wouldn't need to worry about what they dump where. Alas the heavy flooding and mass droughts that climate change is bringing will lead to the moral issue of the humanitarian crisis. Basically for those of no morality global warming is not an issue.

ICP-GC-MS, as the seperating system. Drug identification is expensive and precise as hell.

Am I the only one that finds the idea of super heating HF slightly worrying. I am not allowed in the HF lab as a second year chemistry undergraduate, even as a third year I'm not allowed near the stuff, it's postgrad only with specific rather expensive training, on top of this you need a medical doctor on staff with HF training sitting around just in case you fuck up. That is for room temperature acid digests. God only knows the amount of safety protocols and highly trained staff you would need to ensure the safety of the workforce. On top of this what the hell is the core containment made of that can take super heated HF in an ionic salt solution, I mean christ even the teflon digest stuff we have is only safe to 400 celsius.

Also looking at the numbers, you have someone comparing energy content of 100kg of pure thorium to 100kg of Uranium ore, now that is just shady as fuck to say the least.

This whole thing just screams the old cold fusion money grab hoax.

I mean graphene coating windows for solar panels is a closer and cheaper time frame.

Photons have no mass, this is why they can go the speed of light. Momentum = Mass*velocity. So the momentum of light is zero.

>>4388788
The thing is if a persons character can be proven to be in question, like yoru own, then I have every right to call you out on your bullshit.

And as someone else already said, >>4388774, you will just deny any evidence given to you, that is why I also posted the article by the rightwing champion. You are worse than a christian that tries to induce occam's razor on the big bang theory.

>>4388774
Thing is they did that, the physcist Richard Muller became a rising star of the rightwing deniers. He got funding and did his own two year study, and unsurprisingly his results matched the current results. So either he was a master troll or as big a skeptic as he claimed.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348.html

There's HIS article on it, so I'm not showing any bias by taking someone else critical take on it.

>>4388769
How so? I have backed my claims with facts, all of which can be checked, all you have done is gone HUUR IT'S ALL LIES.

I will save you the footwork for you just to cut you off your highhorse of self rightousness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#Relationship_with_oceanic_concen
tration

It's wikipedia so even you should be able to understand it, if you want a more technobabble heavy article I will do that leg work too if you really can't get your head out of your ass.

>>4388750
what problems with the facts? Have you actually read them directly from the papers or have you got them through rightwing blogs who haven't been near a climatology textbook let alone a paper on the subject.

>>4388746
The thing is it can't be, look at my first post. We are responsible for the increase in CO2 which is having an affect, the ocean is now saturated and is approaching its heat expansion limit, the planets CO2 buffer system is now gone.

>>4388652
The issue arises from the planets natural CO2 storage methods. Such as peat bogs, perma frost, ocean storage. All of these are realeased by raised temperatures, increasing the temperature further.

The CO2 concentration of the ocean is now so high it is acidic, this is resulting in the death of millions of micro-organisms in the ocean, this is leading to the slow collapse of marine ecosystems.

Increasing temperatures also lead to more extreme weather patterns as a larger volume of water vapour can be supported by the elevated temperature, and various other aspects.

We are experiencing a massive increase in forrest fire occurence, this is caused by the lack of ground moisture leading to tinder forrests. This not only destroys eco systems it also releases CO2 into the air, adding to the problem.

The world has so many feedback systems that any upset can swing the whole system massively, and that is what's happening.

The greenhouse affect functions within a set limit, a limit set by the rate of C12 to C14 conversion in the atmosphere. Life evolved and adapted to this concentration and temperature. We are now changing that and expecting it to be fine.

Want more?

Methane has well known thermal properties.

It is known that it takes a methane molecule an average of 15 years to break down in the atmosphere.

Methane is a more potent greenhouse gas because of these two facts.

Animals produce methane during digestion, and organisms during decomposition.

The biggest methane source on this planet is the rudiment live stock.

We put the live stock there.

We are responsible for the methane increase.