After watching this video I have become a skeptic. This alar

File: Milankovitch_Cycles_400000.gif (15KB, 500x221px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 500x221px

>>8675482
Yeah it's bullshit. Notice how CO2 always follows temperature change, it can't be responsible.

>>8675482
>I have become a skeptic
Are you referring to the last time you posted this exact same thread and got BTFO? Nah you were probably lying then too.

>SLR when data non-independent
>Using R^2 to convey "info"
>No p-value or interval
>Extrapolating slope to timescale five times longer than data

Fuck off you stupid cunt.

>>8675553
He posts milancovitch cycles that are result of axial tilting of the earth. Yup, as known the climate change is not man made but rather a result of something else. Also, correlation doesnt imply causation, did humans emit carbon dioxide that much thousands of years ago?

>>8675482
You will fork over the carbon regardless of what you think or how much you shitpost here mister. The science was settled years ago and is immutable fact, not open for debate and will never change from here on until the lights go out.

>>8675482
Who will fundies blame when normal food runs out and they have to switch to soy?

>>8675482
>pic
Try using the latest RSS data.

>Molyneux video
Fuck no.

>there's no reason and no evidence to believe it will be catastrophic
You can't just shove your fingers in your ears, and then claim there's no evidence.

>>8675553
>Notice how CO2 always follows temperature change, it can't be responsible.
CO2 rise was a feedback, not a driver for those changes.
That doesn't mean it can't be a driver right now.

File: trend240.png (7KB, 620x480px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 620x480px

The science is settled.
No one understands climate.

>>8675970
>mfw dupes that believe in AGW are also same dupes eating soy
>mfw when they soy themselves out of existence

>>8675482
There is evidence of global warming and a catastrophic event. It is caused by natural by earth processes.
Recycling is pretty good though -desu ~ At least all our shit will be in a nice and orderly pile when the next earth shattering disaster hits. IF we do make it safely to the future then we should have stuff like floating cities and shit by 2030 at least. Hopefully.

>le 1998 memegraph
consider sudoku

>>8675935
Oh i'm not denying climate change, I'm denying human made climate change.

>>8677148

could you just stop posting on sci? At least stop making threads?

>>8675974
If it was a feedback and a cause, the temperature would've rose exponentially.

>>8677163
I'm actually not posting the threads, but I think I've inspired more people with my comments to question established beliefs since the first thread. Which is a good thing.

I won't stop posting in them because I have no other place to talk about this. In academia my papers would be accepted, but I wouldn't be able to work again.

"It's dangerous when you are right where the establishment's men are wrong." - Voltaire

>>8675482
>After watching this video I have become a skeptic.

Then you're a weak minded faggot on the same level as the flat earth brigade.

>>8677184
>In academia my papers would be accepted, but I wouldn't be able to work again.

Because....?

>>8675553
See >>8677327

File: Screen Shot 2017-02-15 at 3.54.17 PM.png (356KB, 1386x1438px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 1386x1438px

>>8677373
>>In academia my papers would be accepted, but I wouldn't be able to work again.
Bullshit. BULLSHIT.

People publishes data that reel in some aspect of climate alarmism all the time in academia. Pic related is a published paper that argues exactly the same argument you had, CO2 follows temperature and lags temperature by 200 yr. The main author Frederic Parenin just got an established researcher job at LGGE, Grenoble France one of the main European frontier for ice core science.

Your argument is Alex Jones tier paranoid conspiracy bullshit with absolutely no proof other than huffing and puffing your chest while saying "believe me"

>>8677185
>as the flat earth brigade.
Are you seriously so un-imaginative that you can't see that a working flat-earth model exists--that functions as well as our current 3d model--but has yet to be discovered? May never be revealed.
Gravity worked before some guy came up with a model for it.
Lots of stuff existed before we came up with models of Reality.

>>8677387
Responded there.

>>8677540

No it's not, I don't publish it because I'm in fucking USA. Although to be fair, with the death of the EPA I could probably publish now.

>>8677178
You should learn how feedbacks (in general, not just climatology) actually work, a lot of people have pretty severe misunderstandings about them.

>>8677540
Christ nigger take it easy I think you meant to respond to >>8677184, I was just asking why he would lose his job if his work was published

>>8678273
Give us the abstract of one of your papers.

File: daberoni.jpg (70KB, 779x960px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 779x960px

>>8677184
>I think I've inspired more people with my comments to question established beliefs since the first thread
translation:
>some /pol/ kiddies saw my threads and decided to get in on the fun, and now there's three people shitting up the board with this paranoid pseudoscience, instead of just one

are you the guy who kept posting that (unpublished) paper claiming that cellphones can cause cancer because the photoelectric effect doesn't work the way all of physics says it does?

>>8678273
>No it's not, I don't publish it because I'm in fucking USA. Although to be fair, with the death of the EPA I could probably publish now.

Again absolute lies. Crockpot of Malarkey.

Ed Brook from Oregon State wrote the perspective exactly on that paper. He's still alive and kicking currently as one of the major ice core labs in the US fully running with NSF funding.

Valerie Delmotte the second author of Frederic Parenin's paper was the LEAD FUCKING AUTHOR on IPCC AR5 paleoclimate section.

Climate scientists absolutely know this already, it's not even a conspiracy. Local Antarctic Temperature does lead CO2 during the last deglaciation. There's nothing special or groundbreaking about such ideas.

Can you stop LARPing please?
>>>/tg/
is over there, it's getting embarassing

>>8678554
For fuck's sake, don't send the /pol/-nuts to /tg/.
What did /tg/ ever do to you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc
this videos really changed the way i think and understand global warming.
a must watch.

>>8675482
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ox5hbkg34Ow

>>8679366
thanks for that propaganda shot. i really needed something to reinforce my faith

>>8679332
>Stefan Molyneux
>a must watch.
Fuck off.

>>8678480
No I believe in all mainstream physics and falsifiable sciences. Even some non-falsifiable ones like Evolution, just because it's reasonable.

>>8675482
Wait...what base level is that? You just stroke a line between the graph.

>>8679754
>evolution is unfalsifiable
You're retarded

>>8677148
Go back to /pol/

Can someone please watch this video and give me a refutation of whatever they can? https://youtu.be/THg6vGGRpvA

>>8679896
https://wottsupwiththat.com/2011/05/20/pat-frank-the-new-science-of-climate-change/

>>8679935
Thanks, good to know but I think this post doesn't address his claims in this video. IIRC his claim is that the research presents the range of different results that the simulations produce as the uncertainty range of the future temperatures. But if you try to do error propagation through a model of what those simulations do, then the resulting uncertainty range is so wide that predictions become meaningless. I think his compaint in this video is that researchers do not present an uncertainty range based on error propagation but instead only show the range in which the simulated temperatures fall into when the simulation is run multiple times IIRC.

Been some time since I watched the whole thing and I have not seen any other related videos so you may need to watch this yourself instead if reading my interpretation. I know it's long...

>>8679977
Watching the video, Frank's "error propagation" is simply nonsense because it assumes that error at some point in time will increase linearly *by multiples of the current error*. If my watch is off by one minute today this does not mean that it will be off by two minutes tomorrow. My watch has been slowly accumulating error to be one minute off. That one minute is not the error rate.

The guy made a stupid model of error propagation that has nothing to do with real models. Par for the course in the denier echo chamber.

File: Precambrian_rabbit_rawr_1[1].jpg (224KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 800x600px

>>8679754
>non-falsifiable ones like Evolution
ur a faget

>>8679849
>>8680175


There's an article about scientific qualms in the theory of Evolution in the BCIM journal (article just came out), so to solve it they added the much needed neutral null. If something has a neutral null, it's falsifiable in some ways (more than before), but really isn't.

Before the neutral null hypothesis of evolution everything would be "because of evolution". This animal hasn't evolved in 100m years? Yeah that's because of evolution. This animal evolved last year "Yeah that's because of evolution". There is no null hypothesis, which prevents it from being falsifiable.

The fact that many people aren't aware of the philosophy of science (even scientists), allows just about any idea to cower under the facade of it.

And modern science is something specifically defined as something that uses the scientific method inspired by Sir Francis Bacon. Using that definition, ~The Theory of E V O L U T I O N~ falls under a grey area.

>cited
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5180405/

>>8680039
Why is his error propagation incorrect? He's doing error propagation for every step of the simulation. The model he is using is basically something the form ΔΤ(Τ)=a*T+b. And he managed to place this right between all the complex models. The propagation for his model seems correct, step by step the error accumulates. Are you saying that by being more complex the other models somehow don't propagate error the same way? I mean are you saying that he propagated the error incorrectly on his model or are you saying that it's not correct to assume that the more complex models are also propagating that error the same way as the simplified model?

>>8680297
Once again you are spouting nonsense.

The neutral null refers to neutral evolution, which is simply a change in the genetics of a population from random chance. "Neutral null" is not some special kind of null that is "falsifiable in some ways (more than before), but really isn't." The paper is not talking about falsifying evolution, it's talking about pan-adaptionism, which is an interpretation of evolution. The paper if anything implies evolution is falsifiable.

>>8680647
>Why is his error propagation incorrect?
I just explained why. He took the absolute error as the error rate when the two are clearly not the same. Read the post before replying to it.

>>8675482
>After watching this one video
>I have made a skeptical of myself
so you're like all the other skepticals

>>8680715

Wow why don't you read the paper dipshit.

>"In the decades since its introduction, the neutral theory of evolution has become central to the study of evolution at the molecular level, in part because it provides a way to make strong predictions that can be tested against actual data. The neutral theory holds that most variation at the molecular level does not affect fitness and, therefore, the evolutionary fate of genetic variation is best explained by stochastic processes. This theory also presents a framework for ongoing exploration of two areas of research: biased gene conversion, and the impact of effective population size on the effective neutrality of genetic variants."

The whole fucking point of the paper is to show that not everything is from evolution but rather stochastic faculties.

Really seems like Neutral theory was invented for the purpose of making evolution falsifiable.

I'm convinced /sci/ is full of ignoramuses suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect.

>citation

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/neutral-theory-the-null-hypothesis-of-molecular-839

>>8680926
>The whole fucking point of the paper is to show that not everything is from evolution but rather stochastic faculties.
Jesus Christ, you are legitimately retarded. You don't even know what evolution is. Evolution is genetic change in a population. It is not simply adaption or natural selection. You are confusing evolution with adaption, which is what the paper is explicitly saying you should not do. I mean come on, you are attempting to interpret a paper without even looking up the basic terminology being used, and you are attempting to pretend that you understand it.

>>8680715
OK let's take this step by step. The first ΔΤ is calculated linearly based on the initial T which has error. So the first ΔT has also got error that is some multiple of the starting error (it could even be smaller than the starting error). Do we agree so far?

Now to calculate T_100 you need to sum the starting T along with about 100 calculated ΔT. All those ΔΤs have error which is at least as big as the first ΔΤs error. He showed before that those errors are not random so summing those ΔΤ will not make the errors cancel out, and instead they will keep accumulating.

So based on the above the error rate is proportional to the absolute error which is what you object too.

To use your clock analogy: if your clock is 4 seconds off today and you clock has a randomly variable day length of 24 hours plus/minus 1 second, then in a year from now, your error will not be much different from today's error, because most daily errors will cancel out since they are random. But if your clock's errors are not really random, then you cannot assume that they will cancel out before better understanding the nature of that error.

>>8675482
Cult Leader Molyneux?
Fuck off

>>8680647
>The propagation for his model seems correct
It's correct but also a dramatic overestimation of the error. That method of error propagation gives you outer bounds of error but isn't the best measure available.

Evolutionary theory says one thing and one thing only: the frequency of heritable traits in a population can change.

>>8681427
Again you fail to respond to the point I actually made. You keep describing his methodology when I am saying he made an empirical error. Specifically, he assumes the absolute error at a certain point is the error rate, but the two are clearly different things. I don't get why you can't understand this since the watch analogy is simple enough. But so far you have not even accurately described how Frank came up with the error rate let alone defended it. So it seems you still haven't understood the post I originally made. Perhaps a video will be easier for you to digest?

https://youtu.be/rmTuPumcYkI

>>8675482
>Obviously global warming is real and it's happening and we are contributing to it,

THIS IS WHY IT IS OUT OF HAND. IDIOTS LIKE YOU PASSING IT OFF AS TRUE.

>>8681935
Take your meds and go back to >>>/pol/

>>8681928
I think I am replying to your point but in any case the video is definitely helpful. I'm in the middle of it but I'll have to watch it couple more times to get everything. Thanks!

File: samefags.png (296KB, 1876x526px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 1876x526px

Can mods please do something about these samefags spamming the same shitty climate change bait threads every other day?

>>8682255
How is it the same thread?

>>8682267
It's kinda sad that this even needs to be pointed out to you. Look at the text, look at how the filename is the exact same filename (meaning posted by the same faggot).
It's the same guy almost every day making these bait threads just to argue. There's never anything productive about them because the guy that makes them is just doing it to argue, not actually discuss.

>>8682285
Wow he used the same image, the bastard, a whole 2 times!!!
And the threads are different.
Maybe try not to get your panties in a bunch next time, autismo maximus

>>8682290
>He
You mean you used the same filename (why else are you so defensive?)
>autismo maximus
I think you're projecting a little too much timmy, now go on back to >>>/pol/ and stay in your echo chamber please.

>>8682301
You're taking this 4chan thing way too seriously. Get outside.

File: 1414543025718.gif (728KB, 500x341px) Image search: [Google]

728KB, 500x341px

>>8680297
>There's an article about scientific qualms in the theory of Evolution in the BCIM journal (article just came out), so to solve it they added the much needed neutral null. If something has a neutral null, it's falsifiable in some ways (more than before), but really isn't.

One of the biggest hallmarks of a pseudoscience is its obsession with attacking the "flaws" in mainstream theories, since every attempt by them to create a coherent and logically consistent alternate theoretical framework turns into a huge disaster.

>>8682476
attacking flaws in mainstream theories is how the mainstream theories become stronger, anon

>>8682476

The point is that classical Evolution isn't falsifiable. Neutral Null is more falsifiable but it's inherently subjective because it depends on phenotypes to differentiate random mutations; Thus agreeably more falsifiable but not as much as it can be

>>8682697
Except the paper neither says adaption is unfalsifiable nor evolution is unfalsifiable. Did you read it or are you relying on some creationist's interpretation of it?

>>8682697
>Neutral Null is more falsifiable but it's inherently subjective because it depends on phenotypes to differentiate random mutations;
The paper doesn't say anything close to this and its nonsense regardless. You don't need to compare phenotypes to see genetic mutations. Go spread your misinformation somewhere else.

>>8682716
No as I said before I believe in the ~theory~ of evolution. I'm just not delusional and recognize that it's not falsifiable.

And except it does, even to go as far as to compare neutral null to older evolutionary theory, which it goes as far as to call a fallacy.

From a better paper, in journal Nature, it even mentions that NOW evolution is falsifiable with the introduction of the neutral null.

>To claim adaptation, the neutral null has to be falsified. The adaptationist fallacy can be costly, inducing biologists to relentlessly seek function where there is none.

Since you're being excessively parsimonious, how do you falsify classical evolution? Give me a null hypothesis that would defeat evolution.

> the neutral theory of evolution has become central to the study of evolution at the molecular level, in part because it provides a way to make strong predictions that can be tested against actual data.

>cited

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/neutral-theory-the-null-hypothesis-of-molecular-839

>>8682739
How do you think adaptationist evolution is judged? It's all phenotypical by definition. It wouldn't be expressed otherwise.

Since you're a clear brainlet, please refer to:
>>8682742

>>8682742
>From a better paper, in journal Nature, it even mentions that NOW evolution is falsifiable with the introduction of the neutral null.

>To claim adaptation, the neutral null has to be falsified. The adaptationist fallacy can be costly, inducing biologists to relentlessly seek function where there is none.
That's not what the quote means though. Again where are you getting this from?

>Since you're being excessively parsimonious, how do you falsify classical evolution? Give me a null hypothesis that would defeat evolution.
Darwin himself stated that an feature which could not occur through incremental steps of adaption would falsify evolution. And in fact this is how many creationists attempt to disprove evolution. But they have so far failed to find such a feature.

>>8682744
Where are you retards coming from? The neutral null is the opposite of adaptionist. It is based in molecular biology.

>>8675482
kys

>>8683051
That's what i'm saying, if you read any of the posts...

>>8683062
No you weren't.

>Neutral Null is more falsifiable but it's inherently subjective because it depends on phenotypes to differentiate random mutations;

Just admit you have no idea what you're talking about and leave.

>>8683081
Why would I say More falsifiable? what am i comparing it too? You can't follow conversation for shit.

>To claim adaptation, the neutral null has to be falsified. The adaptationist fallacy can be costly, inducing biologists to relentlessly seek function where there is none.

^^^
That directly compares the two different theories.

>>8683081
Welp 7/10, clearly took the bait.

>>8683164
No it doesn't "compare" them. The neutral null can be tested purely genotypically via allele distribution and mutation rate. Again what you are arguing has no connection to what you are quoting. You don't understand what you're quoting. Nowhere does it argue that adaption or evolution is unfalsifiable, and no biologists claim such. You're grasping at straws.

>>8675553
Correlation doesn't imply causation, tard.

>>8677540
Not this crap again, when the data is tortured into a lag of about 200 years. However, it is not statistically impossible that the lab is 0 years.

That's it. A lag of about 200 years, with a small possibility of 0 years. AND NEVER does CO2 go up first.

You can now stop your ridiculous disinformation campaign.

>>8683605
>>>8677540
>Not this crap again, when the data is tortured into a lag of about 200 years. However, it is not statistically impossible that the lab is 0 years.

Whoops, you did admit the 200 year lag. My bad.

>>8683351
Lol this guy is retarded. It literally says that. What is "more" comparing too. Tell us a null hypothesis for evolution too. Brainlet detected

>>8683351
You're a real brainlet, the inventor of modern science, Karl Popper has an essay specifically on Evolution not being falsifiable. Go ahead and read 'Criticism of Evolution'.

>>8683712
Wrong. Popper initially argued that survival of the fittest is unfalsifiable because it is tautological. Survival of the fittest is not the same thing as evolution or even natural selection (which is what Popper mistakenly called survival of the fittest). He then later changer his mind, presumably after this was explained to him by biologists:

"I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. . . ."

Perhaps you should do the same.

But it's good to see you are at least consistently gullible towards creationist fallacies as you are towards climate denialist fallacies.

File: prisencolinensinainciusol.gif (1MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 320x240px

>>8685210
holy shit, absolutely rekt

>>8678350
Please tell me you're not like the idiot here >>8668752

Not all positive feedbacks are exponential, but many (like the one in that post) certainly are.

>>8685210
Time and time again you continue to embarrass yourself.

>>8685275

You too for being equally parsimonious.

>WRONG.

I quote from Karl Popper directly "Evolution is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme."

In 1991, long after Karl Popper was forced to retract his criticism when asked about Evolution he said "One ought to look for alternatives!"

We are all still waiting for your null hypothesis of evolution. I will concede if you give me a null hypothesis which could disprove evolution if shown to be true. Will not be wasting my time on you any longer, I've seen similar Reddit assembled scientific philosophies bereft of not only original but all reasoning.

And to continue to comment on your failure of normal comprehension, I'm not a climate change denialist, but a AGW denialist. There is no question that climate has always been changing for at least the last 400,000 years. Further, I believe in evolution, but I'm sober enough to avoid the squalid fallacy of it being scientific.

>>8685325
You can actually prove that all positive feedback loops are exponential using a right triangular grid.

Out of curiosity could you find me a positive feedback loop that isn't an exponential or special case of one?

>>8685579
>I quote from Karl Popper directly "Evolution is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme."
This is a fake quote. Creationists switched the word "Darwinism" with "Evolution." And as I already showed you Popper recanted. Arguing based on a recanted opinion is dishonest.

>In 1991, long after Karl Popper was forced to retract his criticism when asked about Evolution he said "One ought to look for alternatives!"
So what? Evolution is still falsifiable. Whether or not Popper likes evolution is irrelevant.

>We are all still waiting for your null hypothesis of evolution.
You seem confused. Null hypothesis is only used in the context of statistical or correlative data. So null hypotheses are used in evolutionary biology to test certain theories, but there is no general null hypothesis of evolution.

Here are some examples: http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/courses/evolution/html/null_hypotheses.html

>And to continue to comment on your failure of normal comprehension, I'm not a climate change denialist, but a AGW denialist.
Well I'm glad you admit you're a denialist but what "climate denialist" refers to is not "denial of climate" but your denial of climate science. It doesn't really matter what specifically you deny in climate science. A holocaust denier might accept certain parts of the holocaust and reject others, but he's still a holocaust denier.

Now please go away. Your constant barrage of fallacies is annoying.

>>8685579
>We are all still waiting for your null hypothesis of evolution.
Null hypothesis of evolution: the genetics of a population cannot change

Happy now?

>>8675482
The ocean's acidification and the fact the north pole is turning into a shipping lane, with Russia preparing for it for a good decade now and so will probably have unchallenged control for the foreseeable future, is proof enough for me.

>>8685579
>what is the null hypothesis of relativity?
>checkmate physicists!

>>8685579
>>WRONG.
who are you quoting?

>>8685634
The testable hypothesis was that light would warp around stars, the antithesis was the contrary. Get out of here brainlet.

>>8685608

Actually that proves evolution because the environmental conditions made genetic mutations undesirable (in the vernacular eerie personification).

Please find me an appropriate antithesis.

>>8685604

Sure if you want to make sweeping, generalized, and reductionist claims. Then I'm happy to be a "climate denialist"

File: sci's queen.png (132KB, 729x600px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 729x600px

>>8685733
>Actually that proves evolution because the environmental conditions made genetic mutations undesirable (in the vernacular eerie personification).
you're describing natural selection, not evolution. evolution is explicitly the CHANGE of populations over time.
there's actually a term for when a population isn't evolving (regardless of whether there is a selective force acting on it). it's called Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium
t. paleofag

>>8685751
((Weinberg)))

Nice try goy, now I don't have to respond to any of your arguments jew! Hahaha take that!

>>8685582
Agreed. Positive feed back grows something by a factor say delta which provides further positive feedback:

Thus feedback is on the order of (1 + delta)^n where n is the number of cycles of feedback; depends on the times the effect takes.

Of course (1 + delta)^n = Exp[n*ln(1+delta)]
which is exponential.

>>8685733
>Actually that proves evolution because the environmental conditions made genetic mutations undesirable (in the vernacular eerie personification).
The null hypothesis is "the genetics of a population *cannot* change" not "the genetics of a population *might not* change."

Also, the example you gave is antithetical to evolutionart theory since most mutations are silent and therefore cannot be selected against. A population whose environment made all mutations undesirable would indeed disprove evolution, since an alternative theory would be required to explain how the environment is acting on silent mutations.

So once again, you fail at reading comprehension and basic logic. Starting to see a pattern here?

>>8685944

False. Evolution is done by chance, there could be a mutation that allows organisms to put a lot of energy in RNA and die before RNA failure. Which may be selected against cancer deaths.

As usual you are a reductionist.

But as the Paleofag says, your "antithesis" is actually apart of evolution, like I claimed earlier it's an antithesis to a mechanism

>Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium

>>8675482
Ever heard of thermal expansion? Even if the volume of the ocean increases by 0.000000000001% coastal cities will be doomed.

>>8685961
>False. Evolution is done by chance, there could be a mutation that allows organisms to put a lot of energy in RNA and die before RNA failure.
That wouldn't be a silent mutation, dope.

How many times are you going to get BTFO in this thread?

>But as the Paleofag says, your "antithesis" is actually apart of evolution
Your inability to parse simple sentences is really quite amazing.

>>8685961
Again, the null hypothesis is "the genetics of a population *cannot* change" not "the genetics of a population *might not* change."

>>8685961
>Most mutations are silent and cannot be acted upon
>>Nuh uh, there's this one mutation that would be acted upon
You're really bad at arguing anon.

>>8685867
>calls someone goy
>calls them jew
5/7 satire otherwise

File: improper.jpg (13KB, 200x423px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 200x423px

>>8685971
>if the volume of the ocean increases by 0.000000000001% coastal cities will be doomed.
did the math and that's an extra 0.00001338 km^3 (or 13.38 million liters) of volume. since the surface area of the oceans is ~360,000,000 km^2, the total rise would be 3.72 E -14 km, or 0.372 angstroms.
this is slightly less than the diameter of a hydrogen atom. please consider what scales you're talking about before you throw out random numbers

(yes I know, the surface area of the oceans increases with sea level rise but for the purpose of this example I didn't feel like doing calculus and looking up a bunch of estimates related to coastal elevation gradients)

File: Histology dinosaur.jpg (45KB, 480x476px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 480x476px

>>8685961
paleofag back again.
please note that in my previous post I did NOT agree with you. you're claiming that a lack of change can be an example of evolution, but you're confusing evolution with selection.
evolution BY DEFINITION involves change.

but here, you want a testable hypothesis? I'll give you the classic evo bio one.
H0: there were no rabbits in the Precambrian

>Thread about climate change
>70% of the posters are arguing about evolution

>>8686031
This thread isn't about climate change, it's about delusional people who reject scientific facts.

>>8686015
Ontological fallacy. Existence is not a predicate.

>>8685989
Please refer to Russels Teapot. That's the whole point, there is always an excuse with evolution.


>>8685980

Ad hominem
>/thread

>>8686085
You're thick in the head.

File: (You).gif (2MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3840x2160px

>>8686070
word salad unrelated to the claim previously made

>>8686085
>2017 C.E.
>still not knowing the difference between a mean name and argumentum ad hominem
nobody can actually be this stupid, you must be trolling. take your (You) and get out of here

File: lKaicvA.jpg (126KB, 3000x3000px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 3000x3000px

>>8677687

>>8675482
>>8679780
That line doesn't seem to fit the data.

>>8686015
You are agreeing. I don't think that the equilibrium condition disproves evolution. Thus his antithesis doesn't falsify evolution.
>>8686146

You're getting desperate now. It is the fallacy because you're pretending it's part of the argument, otherwise you wouldn't have responded. However I would be mistaken if you resorted to insults because you gave up.

>>8686904
The Hardy-Weinberg principle states that allele frequency remains stable in the absence of all other evolutionary influences. The null hypothesis implies that evolutionary influences are impossible, not that they might be absent at a particular time. Again you have utterly failed to understand and respond to the argument even though this has been explained to you multiple times. The only logical conclusion is that you are purposefully misrepresenting your opponent's argument because you have no response to it.

File: Chad Gadya.gif (2MB, 316x320px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 316x320px

>>8686904
>I don't think that the equilibrium condition disproves evolution. Thus his antithesis doesn't falsify evolution.
reminder: the antithesis was that the genetics of populations CANNOT change, not that it sometimes doesn't change. and you are still confusing evolution with (natural) selection.

evolution is a fact; species and populations change over time. natural selection is a theory that explains the fact.
similarly, things falling down (near the surface of the Earth) is a fact. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, and later on general relativity, are theories that describe that fact.

>It is the fallacy because you're pretending it's part of the argument, otherwise you wouldn't have responded.
are you referring to the ontological fallacy babble, or to your accusation of argumentum ad hominem? you'd be wrong on either count, but I'm curious.

>>8687035
You're right I wasn't being explicit enough. If i'm asking for an antithesis, thus I wasn't criticizing the model of evolution but rather the theory behind it.

>>8687035
Please look at Critique of Pure Reason if you think the ontological fallacy is babble (another reason you can't use that thesis is that it must make predictions not hindsight recognition) . But I was talking about the ad hominem argument (there was nothing except personal attacks) with the assumption that the previous user was trying to continue the argument and hadn't given up.

File: goalposts.jpg (160KB, 500x400px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 500x400px

>>8687837
>demands testable hypothesis for evolution
>no no, it has to be in the future! if it's already happened that doesn't count!
if you're paying attention, the prediction in
>H0: there were no rabbits in the Precambrian
is that no specimens of rabbits will be found in Precambrian sediments. as long as this is the case, we will fail to reject H0; if a rabbit is ever found in such a setting, it will be a rather conclusive rejection of H0.
pic related though

>there was nothing except personal attacks
in >>8685980 the anon pointed out that the hypothetical example you gave of a silent mutation wasn't actually a silent mutation, since silent mutations by definition are neither selected for nor against. he also pointed out that you'd claimed my previous post agreed with you, when a competent reading of it reveals the opposite.
those are substantive points, but because he called you a dope and drew attention to your deficient reading comprehension skills, you seem to think it's an ad hom.
Paleofag's Conjecture: the likelihood of an anon knowing the correct meaning of "argumentum ad hominem" is inverse to their predilection for accusing others of it.

File: regretti.jpg (94KB, 760x706px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 760x706px

>>8687837
>I wasn't criticizing the model of evolution but rather the theory behind it
so you weren't criticizing the theoretical framework explaining how evolution happens, but rather the theoretical framework explaining how evolution happens?
EXPLAIN.

>>8687837
Of course it makes predictions. The null hypothesis predicts no genetic changes in a population will be found. All one needs to do to reject the null hypothesis is find a genetic change in a population.

>>8675482
>skeptic
Everyone who isn't naturally skeptic is a dummy.

>>8675482
>which is what conservatives have been saying all along.

Lol bullshit. The conservative mantra has always been "it is not happening. it is not a problem. drill baby drill"

pls take the history revisionism somewhere else
>>>/pol/
>>>/x/
>>>/hm/

In better news, Potholer released a new video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQph_5eZsGs

Resources exist to be consumed, and consumed they will be - if not by this generation then by some future. By what right does this forgotten future seek to deny us our birthright? None, I say! Let us take what is ours, chew, and eat our fill.

>>8687869
You must make predictions for the future not the past. That's a karl popper, even sir Francis bacon, necessity for a prediction. You're falling into encouraging hindsight bias. Name one theory in physics which its hypothesis relies on something already known. Predictive is stating some thing that is to be not is.

The point is that mutations can stop, and genetics can stop changing, because of a non-silent genetic change. Then all genetic changes stop because of a previous non-silent mutation.Unless your dull enough to believe that mutations only can affect the phenotype they were selected for and have no other effects. I thought your weak mind would fail to understand this.

As I explained thoroughly twice, I acknowledge his post as ad hominem under the assumption that all responses are part of the argument. If he is attacking my character as a part of the argument, that is the definition of ad hominem. If you continue to disagree, please disclose your esoteric, idiosyncratic definition of it.

>>8687886
I was talking about Paleofags antithesis. The criticism for the other antithesis is above.

>>8687870

What i'm criticizing is natural selection, darwinism, not the model. Models that are predictive are fact. The question is whether the theory is correct. A theory can have some derived models that are correct, but may fail predicting other phenomena that it should be able to explain. When this happens we say that the theory is `incorrect` or incomplete. This is why theories need to be falsifiable.

File: Screen Shot 2017-02-20 at 5.26.17 PM.png (64KB, 1230x408px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 1230x408px

>>8687869
Also embarrassing that you don't know what prediction means; so much so that you couldn't possibly conceive that your usage of it is incorrect, and that I must be trying to move the goalposts. It won't be that easy.
>pic related

>>8690099
The prediction is that you will continue to find genetic changes in the future. Of course this is very unsatisfying, because you are asking for the null hypothesis of a well established fact, and not a specific theory. What is the null hypothesis for relativity? What is the null hypothesis for gravity? By your warped standards, we must conclude that these are unscientific as well.

>The point is that mutations can stop, and genetics can stop changing, because of a non-silent genetic change.
Again you fail to respond to the point. Saying that some hypothetical mutation could result in no more mutations for a particular organism has literally nothing to do with the null hypothesis, which is that genetic changes *cannot occur* at all.

This is really quite pathetic, that you keep ignoring the argument while pretending to respond to it. You know it and I know it. This is just about your ego at this point.

>As I explained thoroughly twice, I acknowledge his post as ad hominem under the assumption that all responses are part of the argument.
That assumption is false.

File: CANCER.jpg (223KB, 900x675px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 900x675px

>>8690099
>You must make predictions for the future not the past.
That no lagomorph material will ever be found in Precambrian sediments is a prediction for the future. It is not the mere fact that none have yet been found, but the prediction that none will ever be found. Such predictions (relating to future discoveries of events now past) are common in the geosciences, since most processes operate on timescales surpassing not only human life but also human civilization.

>Name one theory in physics which its hypothesis relies on something already known. Predictive is stating some thing that is to be not is.
Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, for one. Or was it not known beforehand that things fell towards the Earth?

>The point is that mutations can stop, and genetics can stop changing, because of a non-silent genetic change. Then all genetic changes stop because of a previous non-silent mutation.
...do you actually believe that it is possible for a mutation to prevent all further mutation?
Mutations do not arise as the result of some mutation-producing mechanism in organisms. They are the result of replication errors, oxidative stress, radiation damage, or a whole host of other factors. There is no possible mutation that would prevent further mutation; you are ignorant of cell and molecular biology from top to bottom.

File: Buttery goodness.jpg (65KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 512x512px

>>8690099
>I acknowledge his post as ad hominem under the assumption that all responses are part of the argument. If he is attacking my character as a part of the argument, that is the definition of ad hominem.
Except he didn't attack your character as part of his argument; he inferred unpleasant things about you based on the poor quality of your argument.
"You're an idiot, therefore you're wrong" is argumentum ad hominem. "You're wrong for these reasons, therefore you're an idiot" is not.
Note that my entire argument against you here has been based on the facts relevant to the matter at hand and on your arguments related to those facts. Am I now guilty of argumentum ad hominem, for inferring (based on your flagrant revisionism and generally inadequate reading comprehension) that you're a blithering moron?

>What i'm criticizing is natural selection, darwinism, not the model.
Except you claimed you were criticizing evolution, not natural selection. Did it really take you two whole days to realize there's a difference?
>Models that are predictive are fact.
this isn't actually true. did you just make this shit up off the top of your head?
>A theory can have some derived models that are correct, but may fail predicting other phenomena that it should be able to explain. When this happens we say that the theory is `incorrect` or incomplete. This is why theories need to be falsifiable.
And if rabbits were to be discovered in Precambrian deposits, theories of evolution by natural selection would fail to explain or account for this, and would need to be drastically revised.

>>8690112
>you don't know what prediction means
and again, when I say "there will be no rabbits found in Precambrian deposits ever" that is a prediction, because it describes future events. if someone accurately told you where to find a diamond the size of your head, you'd consider that pretty impressive and predictive even though the diamond had been there for millions of years, right?

>>8675553
Correlation is not causation you fucking mouthbreather.

>>8690375
>basis of all climate science evidence, thats actually my point

>>8690367
>models that are predictive aren't actually predictive

>>8690367
> Except you claimed you were criticizing evolution, not natural selection.

Nice clairvoyance. What other thoughts am I thinking that I don't know about?

>>8690367

>And if rabbits were to be discovered in Precambrian deposits, theories of evolution by natural selection would fail to explain or account for this, and would need to be drastically revised.

Even if rabbits were found, that wouldn't disprove natural selection at all. There are creatures that have existed for 100m years.

File: IDiot Bingo.png (72KB, 720x780px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 720x780px

>>8690397
>models that are predictive aren't actually fact
FTFY
there is a difference. even if a model is perfectly predictive thus far, that doesn't necessarily make it fact. remember the inductive turkey?

>clairvoyance
you claimed that evolution (your word) was non-falsifiable back >>8680297 >>8683712 >>8685579
it's not clairvoyance; it's a scroll wheel.

>Even if rabbits were found, that wouldn't disprove natural selection at all.
It would certainly disprove natural selection as a mechanism of evolution throughout earth history. Natural selection holds that organisms change slowly, by gradual modification of pre-existing organisms. The fossil history of rabbits shows them slowly being derived from more basal glires, which were themselves derived from synapsid protomammals, which evolved from early amniotes, which evolved from labyrinthiodont "amphibians" (sensu lato) which evolved from sarcopterygian fishes, which evolved from proto-vertebrates, which came from some sort of deuterostome ancestor, which evolved from microscopic early metazoans about which little is known. The point is that there is a long history describing how rabbits came to be, in accordance with the principles of natural selection. But if rabbits were found to have existed far before the first (previously known) vertebrates, let alone the first mammals, it would throw the whole order into confusion. The earliest life was unambiguously simple; therefore, all complex organisms (such as metazoans) have gone from simple to complex morphology over their history. How, then, can a highly complex organism such as a rabbit have appeared and disappeared in a time where none of its forebears were to exist for another half a billion years, not to "arise" again until 450 million years later?
It would be like theorizing that bread is made from flour, which is ground from wheat, which grows from the earth, and then walking into a field and seeing fresh loaves growing from the stalks.

File: cola evolution.png (318KB, 903x458px) Image search: [Google]

318KB, 903x458px

>>8690397
>There are creatures that have existed for 100m years.
Again, just how fucking old do you think the planet is?

>>8690437
Clever visual, whoever made it, 10 points to Gryffindor.

>>8690435

I meant the accuracy of the prediction is a fact, but sorry there will be no further semantic gymnastics today (and I think you knew that).

Even if that was true (it's not), you should have steel manned the argument instead of assuming the worse possible argument. But I'll ignore this, and I won't mistake it as an attempt of a straw man but rather just being intellectually lazy.

>>8690435

Oh you mean like Horse shoe crabs, and Sturgeon, Frilled sharks? There also exist animals that look exactly alike but have complete different origins. Sure it would change our morphology over, but nothing else. It's also known that animals have and do evolve back and forth depending on the environmental conditions. It would not disprove nature selection.

>>8690437

Not relevant

File: MUHREDDITARGUMENT.png (173KB, 1902x672px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 1902x672px

>>8690435

Non-partisan here to drop some daily shame.

>When you know this user uses reddit assembled arguments because he can't come up with his own.

>>8688912
>linking brainlets to /hm/
As a irl faggot, I'm offended

>>8690435

I concede, Darwinism is predictive. However, I still think it's a weak theory because its predictions are inherently subjective.

>>8690435
Holy shit, I just looked up that "The second law of thermodynamics prohibits evolution" thing, are people actually that stupid or is it just an ironic meme like flat earth?

>>8690435
But also not all animals have gone from simple to complex, and I don't think thats a prerequisite of natural selection. Such as the sea anemone, flies, and worms.

>>8690602
Never underestimate the power of stupid people.

>>8690587
>MUH REDDIT
Wow, you're dumb.

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

File: DBZ.gif (1MB, 278x199px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 278x199px

>>8690566
>I meant the accuracy of the prediction is a fact
literally a different thing from what you said. as I am NOT clairvoyant, I can only argue against what you say, and not what you secretly mean. this whole thread has been a study in you trying to revise your statements and claim that you meant something slightly less ridiculous than what you actually said.

>Horse shoe crabs, and Sturgeon, Frilled sharks?
do you not understand the brobdingnagian difference between a taxon remaining superficially similar over a long period of time, and a taxon appearing in the record ex nihilo, disappearing just as suddenly, and then reappearing gradually through modification of other organisms hundreds of millions of years later?
>There also exist animals that look exactly alike but have complete different origins
do not mistake superficial similarity (e.g. shrews and elephant shrews) for the same creature evolving twice independently.
>It's also known that animals have and do evolve back and forth depending on the environmental conditions.
there is, again, a fundamental difference between the loss and gain of wings in walkingsticks or of limbs in certain lizards, for example, and the evolution of a rabbit from unicellular precursors. and when such major structures are lost and regained, it is not a novel development of them but rather a change in regulatory gene expression. (that is. limbs were never so much lost as simply switched off.)

>Not relevant
the age of the Earth is ABSOLUTELY relevant.
first off, it sheds some light on whether or not you follow the evidence. if someone rejects the overwhelming evidence in favor of a 4.54 billion year old Earth, it's a safe bet that their opinions on evolution aren't based in reality either.
secondly, the age of the Earth constrains what is and isn't possible. there are many, many evolutionary events that are perfectly plausible over timespans of billions of years but impossible on a span of only 6 thousand years.

File: dont4get2floss.jpg (66KB, 960x693px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 960x693px

>>8690602
>are people actually that stupid
I'm afraid so, m88.
a chemistry professor at my uni (it's a meh-tier uni, really) routinely brings it up to try and b8 bio or geo students in his classes. he's a bible-thumper, we're in a small sane-ish enclave in Dumbfuckistan, and nobody cares enough to do anything to stop him.

>>8690606
>not all animals have gone from simple to complex
depends on your definition of complex. if it's multicellular, with specialized organs and tissues, it's pretty morphologically complex compared to LUCA or to modern prokaryotes. (note that we metazoans/animals are *metabolically* pretty simple and boring compared to some archaea.) my point was that everything came from a simple ancestor eventually, so if it's complex now, it went from simple to complex at some point.
>I don't think thats a prerequisite of natural selection.
right you are. evolution is not teleological.

File: autism.png (68KB, 611x338px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 611x338px

>>8690587
>reddit assembled arguments
if you scroll up, you stupid cockholster, you'll see that I introduced it as "the classic evo bio one"

>>8690844
what I don't understand is how he did enough Googling to find the Reddit thread but not enough to find the Wikipedia article talking about how it's a widely known evo bio meme. the Wikipedia article is literally the first result when you Google what I wrote.

File: 161219172320-beijing-china-smog-super-tease[1].jpg (110KB, 1100x619px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 1100x619px

>>8675482
What's really dumb is that people only view climate change as "temperature fluctuations" when you can clearly see smog and pollution fucking up people/nature.
How does that not count as climate change? How is that not human-made?

>>8691019
who cares about chinks. i'm doing fine

>>8690979
Under conditions of unclarity you should always assume the best argument not the worst. Learn to steel man.

File: Ainsley.png (41KB, 760x797px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 760x797px

>>8691755
>if someone makes a bad argument you should assume they meant something smart instead
it wasn't really unclear; they argued against evolution for two whole days and then tried to turn around and claim that they meant natural selection instead. and then they claimed that if a model has predictive power, the model becomes fact...and then tried to claim that instead the "fact" was the accuracy of the predictions, not the model itself.

if you want to be taken seriously, make an argument that stands up to critique. don't expect others to support your claims for you.
we're adults here. the training wheels are off.

File: plant-growth-co2-carbon-yield-increase.gif (99KB, 600x440px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 600x440px

>>8675482
>>8675553
i belive these cycles have to do with plantlife
the coal we burn right now has its origin from huge trees that lived milion years ago
whan these trees lived they needed much more CO2 than the plants we have today, in fact today these trees wouldnt grow because they wouldnt get enought CO2

What we should expect is that plants will grow bigger and faster because of the rising CO2 levels
the palnts will absorb the CO2, and lower the concentration in the atmosphere of it

the plants will now get less CO2 leading to their dead, the CO2 will be released from the rotting plants, rising the concentration of it in the atmosphere
making plants grow faster

and this is where the cicle repeats

File: 1484283065641.png (947KB, 474x503px) Image search: [Google]

947KB, 474x503px

>engaging /pol/tard trolls

How the fuck did we go from Global warming to evolution? God I wish you autistic fucks could stay on topic!

>>8691814
A model is a set of methods for prediction. Adults don't create straw man arguments and try to learn by arguing civilly while giving others benefit of the doubt.

Assuming and attacking a weak argument doesn't accomplish this because it's a sort of argumentum ad logicam fallacy (in addition to a straw man argument). The astute interlocutor must strive to find truth which can only be accomplished by steering clear of these fallacies. However the immature contrarian who wants a game should commit the fallacy.

It's quite clear that when someone says antithesis they are talking about a theory not a model. Also saying a model is a fact is correct usage, albeit rare.

"a thing that is indisputably the case"

>>8692053

That's a theory worth looking into. Don't forget algae too.

>>8675482
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c4XPVPJwBY
Pretty good video desu.

>>8692053
>CO2 is plant food
except that plants in almost all environments are limited in their growth by iron, phosphate, nitrate, or water...NOT CO2. plants in greenhouse experiments only grow bigger under high CO2 because they're given plenty of all those other nutrients. in the wild, where this isn't the case, CO2 fertilization effects will be minimal. this is well understood.

>>8692695
>A model is a set of methods for prediction.
not actually true. did you just make this up off the top of your head?
>muh straw man
your complaint was that I responded to the argument he actually made, instead of responding to a more coherent version of his argument. that's not a straw man; that's just actual debate.
>while giving others benefit of the doubt
Giving others the benefit of the doubt doesn't mean fixing their arguments for them. If you're too lazy, ignorant, or just plain stupid to make a good argument on your own, it's not my job to do it for you.
>Assuming and attacking a weak argument
Again, there was no assumption involved. All I did was take the guy at his word.

>>8692695
>The astute interlocutor must strive to find truth which can only be accomplished by steering clear of these fallacies. However the immature contrarian who wants a game should commit the fallacy.
Ostentatious verbosity provides nothing to the debate beyond instilling an atmosphere of haughtiness and puffery. Such rhetorical embellishments are a pernicious influence on open discourse; the discerning scholar should instead eschew obfuscation.

>It's quite clear that when someone says antithesis they are talking about a theory not a model.
Which is why when someone uses the term in reference to a historical fact (rather than to a theory whose falsifiability is in question) it gives the impression that they don't know what they're talking about.

>saying a model is a fact is correct usage
literally a lie. why are you doubling down on this bullshit?
also, you can't even maintain simple consistency in a single post! is a model an objective fact, or is a model a suite of predictive methods? I DUNNO, YOU SEEM UNABLE TO DECIDE.

>>8693153
I was rather tearse and not sesquipedalian. A suite of predictive methods can be fact. Please look at the actual definition of fact. Model and fact aren't mutually exclusive.

>>8693151
Yes because it's a game for you with memorized facts. You don't understand value of information, and don't know it. You strive to find information to rattle off to continue to masturbate. If you were a scholar, that wouldn't be your job, but your obligation.

>>8693290
>Iamverysmart.jpeg

Embarrassing

>>8693290
>A suite of predictive methods can be fact. Please look at the actual definition of fact. Model and fact aren't mutually exclusive.
Look, you thundering buffoon, I don't know where you got that idea into your head but it's simply not accurate.
Models are not facts. They DESCRIBE facts, certainly. A good model is BASED on facts and PREDICTS facts unknown to the modeler at the time. But a model is no more a fact than an architectural blueprint is a building.
I'm actually interested in where you got the impression otherwise, though; do you have a source?

>it's a game for you with memorized facts. You don't understand value of information, and don't know it.
Ironic, coming from the guy who doesn't understand the implications of how soil nutrients limit plant growth.
It's not about memorizing facts. It's about recognizing patterns, about understanding how different factors relate to each other, so that you can interpret facts in meaningful, insightful, and rigorous ways.

>>8693329
I wasn't the one who posted the plant thing. I said it was interesting. But considering that the vast majority of carbon (plant matter) in trees come from carbon dioxide. I think that guy's theory has more credence than you give it. But I'm not at all knowledgable on that so thats why I remarked that it is only interesting. It's also not about recognizing patterns, it's about understanding.

Also, mainstream models are often indisputably the case. And that according to Google, is the definition of a fact.

>>8693314

You're just not at that level yet. When you get out of high school, you'll understand like other scholars have--or you'll begin a blue collar job.

File: BOI.jpg (60KB, 800x897px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 800x897px

>>8693329
>But considering that the vast majority of carbon (plant matter) in trees come from carbon dioxide. I think that guy's theory has more credence than you give it.
Just because plants get their carbon from the air (because they are photolithoautotrophs) doesn't mean that more CO2 means more primary production. Plants need more than one thing to grow (just like all organisms), and their growth is limited by whichever nutrient is in shortest supply. In deserts, water usually limits (though the poor soil can mean that nitrate is the limiting factor). In temperate or tropical areas, it's typically nitrate or phosphate. In the oceans, it might be nitrate or phosphate, but it might also be iron (since oxidized iron is very insoluble and therefore is quite rare in the water column).
The very fact that fertilizing soil with nitrate and phosphate causes plants to grow bigger proves that CO2 isn't the limiting factor. If it were, adding more soil nutrients wouldn't help, because the plants would still be starved of inorganic carbon. If buying more flour means you have the ingredients to bake more cakes, you may be sure that eggs are not the limiting reagent.

>But I'm not at all knowledgable on that
And you're apparently determined to stay that way.
I just don't get this trend of professing ignorance on a technical topic but feeling the need to weigh in anyway. If you understand that you don't know much, you should be asking questions rather than making uninformed conjectures.

>Also, mainstream models are often indisputably the case. And that according to Google, is the definition of a fact.
Even if a model has been 100% correct thus far, that doesn't make it a fact; past performance is only a good predictor of future performance IN THE ABSENCE of some major change (e.g. black swan event). And even the best models have their limitations.
You're thinking like a layman rather than a scientist.

>iamverysmart&urapleb
this just makes people think you're overcompensating

File: Coffee.jpg (23KB, 294x273px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 294x273px

>>8696214 should refer to >>8695663
I guess Muphry's Law strikes again

>>8696214

>iamverysmart&urapleb
>I just don't get this trend of professing ignorance on a technical topic but feeling the need to weigh in anyway.

>>8696214
I'm not arguing against that. You always find straw man arguments to pick. Trees were hundreds of feet taller mostly because of CO2 thousands of years ago, the soil composition has gotten richer. So I don't think that will be a limiting factor in this case.

>>8696214
Again, tell me why that if a model is currently indisputably the case how is it not a fact by the formal definition? You're now trying to argue that nothing is ever a fact, which isn't the argument. It's what is colloquially defined as a fact.

File: df3612486fb50970411774f991b6baec9fb7cca2e144180b885f03fba7b07217.jpg (44KB, 448x299px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 448x299px

>>8696214
The Law of Gravity is a fact, and that is a model.

>>8675482
just came into the thread to respond to this
>"what if we're right? We'd have to pay an enormous price then." Which is easily rebutted with "what if you're wrong? The price would be just as high."
here's my response:
lol

also
>>8696214
>this just makes people think you're overcompensating

File: to 2016.png (7KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 640x480px

How do we hide the decline?

File: Trend vs. Pause.gif (585KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

585KB, 640x480px

>>8697406
Amazing that if you pick a year with the largest El Nino temperature fluctuation in recorded history as a starting point, that there's a "decline." Yet the overall trend line is still a warming trend, your decline doesn't exist, sorry pal.

File: to 2017.png (6KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 640x480px

>>8697619
You are so predictable, sockpuppet. The correct reply would have been 'you include the latest El Niño.' Gistemp is faketemp, everybody knows that, except those whose income depends on believing that crap.

File: 1435465843854.jpg (56KB, 418x720px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 418x720px

>>8676605
This is perfect.

>>8697993
>Gistemp is faketemp, everybody knows that,
What a compelling argument.

File: ▄█▀ █▬█ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ ▀█▀.jpg (143KB, 469x469px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 469x469px

>>8696910
>You always find straw man arguments to pick.
Your complaint >>8691755 >>8692695 was literally that I was responding to the argument made instead of assuming that they'd made a better argument. That's not strawmanning; that's just arguing.
>Trees were hundreds of feet taller
literally a lie
>mostly because of CO2
also literally a lie
>thousands of years ago
you still can't get the timescale right; the Carboniferous (era of massive widespread coal swamps) was ~360-300 Mya. you are off by literally five orders of magnitude, which is the difference between the weight of a chipmunk and the weight of an elephant.
>the soil composition has gotten richer.
the whole point I made is that soil nutrients are CURRENTLY too sparse for CO2 to limit plant growth. that has not changed appreciably since the Industrial Revolution.

>>8697044
>why that if a model is currently indisputably the case how is it not a fact by the formal definition?
key word CURRENTLY. just because a model is 100% correct in a certain set of instances doesn't mean it will always hold true; remember the inductivist turkey.
as stated above, a good model approximates facts, which is different and distinct from actually being fact.
>You're now trying to argue that nothing is ever a fact
Nice strawman. I'm simply arguing that there is a difference between a model that seeks to describe some real-world phenomenon and the actual phenomenon itself, and that you're an idiot for insisting otherwise.

>>8697048
>The Law of Gravity is a fact, and that is a model.
Which Law of Gravity? The ancient idea that "all things fall down"? Not a fact. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation? It was a proposed natural law (which is less fact, more postulate) which has since been superseded by general relativity, which is a theory (which can generally be called a scientific fact). Of course, Newton's Law and GR are NOT models. (In fact, things falling down isn't a model either.)

File: glAhZoeh[1].jpg (56KB, 745x734px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 745x734px

>>8697993
>Gistemp is faketemp, everybody knows that
>except for the people who have spent literally decades of their lives studying the atmosphere
>and also the people who aren't delusional memelords

File: NASA 1981 to 2015.gif (173KB, 657x594px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 657x594px

>>8698333
>>8697993
>>Gistemp is faketemp, everybody knows that
>>except for the people who have spent literally decades of their lives studying the atmosphere
>>and also the people who aren't delusional memelords

See those temperatures rewritten. And rewritten again. And rewritten again. Deny your lying eyes! If you don't deny your lying eyes, your are a delusional memelord.

File: Pure, unadulterated Autism.jpg (975KB, 2188x3316px) Image search: [Google]

975KB, 2188x3316px

>>8698440
So sad and predictable, look at you. Who are YOU shilling for buddy? Look at all of this effort to copy paste the same image every single thread, an image that literally shows nothing significant whatsoever, an image that shows you lack the ability to even grasp that, shocking I know, the more observational data we gather about climate, the better our analysis and understanding of the process becomes
I mean honestly, this is just fucking pathetic and sad, I actually feel sorry for the lack of critical thinking skills you exhibit. Complete, 100% delusion and incapable of skepticism of your own idiocy.

The fact that you think it's "rewritten" shows your complete and utter lack of understanding of the data, how it's analyzed, and how measurements change when new information is interpreted. You can post your cute little image time after time after time like the little autist you are, but it changes nothing. Climate change will occur regardless of your ignorance and inability to grasp the simplest of climate concepts. Come back from the realm of paranoid delusion and rejoin rationality please, for your own sake.

>>8698322
>Not realizing that any fact is a model
>not realizing that all actions are dependent on your own contrived model
>Not realizing that everything is predictive and there is no certainty.
>Not realizing you have an impossible definition of a fact
>Not realizing throwing something up and predicting it to fall towards the earth is a model of the law of gravity
>not realizing that all facts are only currently a fact
>Not realizing there is a phenomenal and noumenal
>Not realizing most plants, especially ferns use to be much taller
>Not realizing that as time increases and more plant matter dies soil generally becomes more and more fertile like peats
>Not realizing that you're not realizing

You're an amateur and so is the guy arguing with you. Learn shit about shit.

File: 8f3[1].jpg (1MB, 2816x2112px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2816x2112px

>>8698543
>not realizing that a model of a factual principle is distinct from that principle
>not realizing that most modern plant groups, including true trees didn't exist in the Carboniferous
>not realizing that primary production is much higher today than during a lot of earth history, including during times of high CO2
>not realizing that soils can be gradually depleted of nutrients due to climatological shifts
>not realizing that ecological systems tend to reach near-equilibrium rather than undergoing unidirectional change
>not realizing that you're not realizing
I am in fact a professional.

>>8698491
>So sad and predictable, look at you. Who are YOU shilling for buddy?
> the more observational data we gather about climate, the better our analysis and understanding of the process becomes
>the more observational data we gather about climate
Who is "we?" You and your other paid shills?

And this, "more observational data we gather about climate?"
What set of shill talking points did you get that from?
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOT NEW OBSERVATIONAL DATA FROM THE PAST.
The past is over, there is no new temperature data from say 1935, or 1975. So you're just spouting crap from your list of canned responses to evil deniers.

And the pic from the 4chan archives? Man, you have way too much time. Searching old archives. Complaining about a powerful set of NASA graphs which show the temperature history rewritten over and over again.

>I mean honestly, this is just fucking pathetic and sad, I actually feel sorry for the lack of critical thinking skills you exhibit. Complete, 100% delusion and incapable of skepticism of your own idiocy.
>Complete, 100% delusion and incapable of skepticism of your own idiocy.
>>Complete, 100% delusion
Projection much? You actually believe that its pure coincidence that every "correction" raises the rate of warming.
And you ignore all the inconvenient truths:
That the "corrections" don't correspond to the satellite record?
That the "corrections" don't correspond to the (relatively) clean data (Class 1 and Class 2 NOAA temp stations) record?
That the "corrections" don't correspond with earlier corrections? Why do corrections need corrections?
That the "corrections" don't correspond with qualitative descriptions of the historical climate

But somehow they're all correct, huh?

File: Look Everyone Im Projecting.jpg (34KB, 490x333px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 490x333px

>>8698761
>>8698491

>> Come back from the realm of paranoid delusion and rejoin rationality please, for your own sake
You certainly have a talent for psychological projection

Did you ever read George Orwell's book, 1984? What was the lesson from that book? A persons who speaks truth and fails to forget inconvenient facts is labeled as delusional by "the party." You sir, represent the party. I speak truth to power and in the theme of people with a totalitarian mindset, anyone who doesn't accept the party line is mentally ill.

File: wintergoes_16_and_goes_13_comparison_from_the_same_day_Jan_15_2017.jpg (2MB, 4572x2252px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4572x2252px

>>8675482
Photo from GOES 16/13. Source NASA/NOAA.

I know nobody her will accept it because it doesn't come from a reputable source. Sorry, best I can do.

>>8698768
You literally are mentally ill, look at the amount of times you have shilled in these threads, there's something not right with you. Hilarious how all you do is come in here and post the same ranting and raving posts every single thread, the same images, the same arguments, the same bullshit.

Then you claim I'm projecting, it's so hilarious, you're the one doing just that, but keep on trying to deflect any criticism to your garbage arguments, it doesn't work. The evidence of your delusion speaks for itself.

File: The definition of insanity.png (2MB, 3732x1212px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3732x1212px

>>8698777
*Yawn*

He posted it again, without a single coherent argument. Amazing that it snows in winter, tell me more, oh wise one. Continue to ignore the year after year of warmer and warmer summers in the southern and northern hemispheres, continue to ignore the coral bleaching occurring globally due to warmer ocean waters, continue to ignore all the other insurmountable evidence that humans have an impact on the Earth's climate, because it snowed in winter. Amazing argument. Might as well go into the Senate floor with a snowball like Inhofe did two years ago to "disprove" global warming.

It's also quite pathetic how easy you make it to identify yourself as the samefag you are. Might want to try changing your filenames so it's less embarrassing. No matter how many times your asinine conspiracy blog crap is disproved, no matter how many times you're cited scientific literature and ignore it, you still come back and post your delusional conspiracy fantasies. Just give up man, no one is buying into the bullshit you peddle for your denial bloggers.

>>8698777
also, do you realize that's the same photo taken by two different satellites?

>>8697619
what are paws in climatology. i tried googling it but couldn't find anything

>>8698849
Do you know how I know my points are valid?

It triggers you every time. Because deep down inside, even though you refuse to admit it. You know I'm right.

>>8699595
>posts retarded bullshit
>mildly annoys anonymous poster on nicaraguan civil engineering imageboard
>THIS PROVES I AM WISE

>>8699595
Please explain the point you're trying to make. All I see is a satellite image without context.

>>8699619
So NASA/NOAA images are bullshit?

>thanks for clarifying

File: anegry.jpg (125KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 2048x1536px

>>8699641
those images are of the same thing taken by GOES-13 (a satellite launched in 2006) and GOES-16 (a satellite launched in 2016). GOES-13 and GOES-16 do not refer to the years 2013 and 2016, but rather to a series of satellites dating back to GOES-1 in 1975
>http://www.goes-r.gov/mission/history.html
what exactly is your point? PROTIP: you don't have one.

File: 1462316064444s.jpg (3KB, 125x124px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 125x124px

>>8699619
>nicaraguan civil engineering imageboard
everytime

>>8699662
My point is that 1/3 of the Northern hemisphere was covered in ice this winter. They're rationing vegetables across Europe right now, because of how cold it is. People are dying in the streets. There was snow and freezing temperatures in the UAE and in the middle east this winter.
The narrative is wrong, and the pictures prove it. You'll continue to deny it however. I guess that makes you the climate denier.

>>8699740
>I'm too dumb to understand weather, all I have are dumb satellite photos showing it's snowing in winter with NASA logo to show I'm smart

>They're rationing vegetables across Europe right now, because of how cold it is

https://www.ecologistasenaccion.org/IMG/pdf/informe-inundaciones_cc-ingles.pdf
Also because of massive flooding in the summer greatly reduces usable crop land.

>People are dying in the streets.
People die every year due to winter exposure.

>There was snow and freezing temperatures in the UAE and in the middle east this winter
Wow it snowed once. It is weather

>>8699753
The same tired argument, It's the weather not climate. You an do better, can't you? Your deflector shields are down to 1%.

Your lies are quickly coming to their end. Real science will prevail in the near future. The fraud will be exposed. Get used to eating crow.

>>8699760
>The same tired argument, It's the weather not climate. You an do better, can't you?

>keep making same retarded point
>got upset when people give you the same explanation on why you're wrong

A:Why can't water flow upstream REEEE
B:It's gravity you idiot
A:Same tired argument I've heard over and over again, you can't do better can you?

File: Projection Much.jpg (16KB, 273x185px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 273x185px

>>8698768
>You certainly have a talent for psychological projection
Projection Much?

File: Cat drink.png (1MB, 580x625px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 580x625px

>>8699740
>1/3 of the Northern hemisphere was covered in ice this winter
those are clouds, you dimwit
this has been explained to you before

SAGE THIS FUCKING THREAD

File: I've seen through your tricks.jpg (33KB, 746x691px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 746x691px

>>8700579
>thread is on page 3
>guy posts demanding thread be saged
>bumps thread with post
idontbelieveyou.dll

>>8699760
The Climate has changed in the past, not just the whether.

In the 70s they were actually talking about global cooling. When I was growing up they changed it to global warming. And now it's just called 'climate change'.

I think because we're just beginners at recording the global climate, we're just way too extreme in how we read into it.

I doubt, personally anyways, very much that we're having hardly any impact as human beings on the climate.

Next to the Sun itself, we're nothing. Volcanos and the ocean produce more greenhouse gases than we do, so it's unlikely I think that any change in the climate is man-made.

There is a chance I'm wrong, but not a big enough chance to stress over it.

Besides, if it were true even the entire continent of North America could make very little difference if it were man made. We've done a decent job at cutting emissions compared to much of the world. But we can't stop China or countless other countries, etc.

The reason climate change smells like a scam is because it's trying to tax us on a necessity for life, as if that could solve the problem - that's definitely a scam, whether man made climate change exists or not. Don't sign up to be a slave. This is a carbon based PLANET. Don't let them tax water, carbon, sunlight, or oxygen. They chose carbon because it's the only one they could sneak over peoples heads, but anyone with a grade 8 education should remember that carbon is essential for life, and should never be taxed under any circumstance.

That's literally a tax on your breathing.

>>8698761
>The past is over, there is no new temperature data from say 1935, or 1975.
There's no new data, but we can study the tools and methods they used to get better results than they did.

>And the pic from the 4chan archives? Man, you have way too much time.
The amount of irony here is physically painful.

>You actually believe that its pure coincidence that every "correction" raises the rate of warming.
No, because that's simply not true.

>>8698777
>Earth has clouds
Thanks for pointing that out.

>>8700594
>In the 70s they were actually talking about global cooling. When I was growing up they changed it to global warming. And now it's just called 'climate change'.
Little research claimed that the earth was cooling during the 70s. That myth was made by sensationalist media.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU_AtHkB4Ms&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP&index=3

The term climate change has been used since the 1950s. Consequently, at that time period, there was information being gathered about two hypothesis's known as global dimming and global warming and which one human activity will cause. The weight of evidence that has been gathered over decades demonstrated that it is global warming.
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/doSearch?AllField=The+Carbon+Dioxide+theory+of+climatic+change&content=standard&countTerms=true&dateRange=%5B19500101+TO+19701231%5D&target=default&startPage=0&pageSize=10

Searching 'Climate Change' with a filter leaving only publications from 1950s to 1970s shows many cases of 'Climate Change' being a term used in the title.

>Next to the Sun itself, we're nothing. Volcanos and the ocean produce more greenhouse gases than we do, so it's unlikely I think that any change in the climate is man-made.

Also false. Potholer made another video on the subject. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcmCBetoR18&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP&index=35

(To be continued in another post)

>>8700594

>Besides, if it were true even the entire continent of North America could make very little difference if it were man made. We've done a decent job at cutting emissions compared to much of the world. But we can't stop China or countless other countries, etc.

Also false. North America is the 2nd largest emission producing continent compared to Asia which is far from making very little difference. China may be a massive polluter but it is a falsehood to say that they are ignoring the issue, being the largest investor in green energy. http://www.publicfinanceinternational.org/news/2016/03/china-worlds-largest-investor-renewable-energy

>The reason climate change smells like a scam is because it's trying to tax us on a necessity for life, as if that could solve the problem - that's definitely a scam, whether man made climate change exists or not. Don't sign up to be a slave. This is a carbon based PLANET. Don't let them tax water, carbon, sunlight, or oxygen. They chose carbon because it's the only one they could sneak over peoples heads, but anyone with a grade 8 education should remember that carbon is essential for life, and should never be taxed under any circumstance.

Carbon taxes are not the only solution that has been proposed. In addition, something being essential to function doesn't mean that too much of it isn't a bad thing. It's well documented that Carbon Dioxide can kill people if enough of the air is replaced with it. In medical science, what often matters most is dosage, which can make the difference between something being poison or medicine.

>>8700594
wrong af alex jones
don't worry trump will make sure you get to keep raping the earth

File: Fuck your culture.jpg (136KB, 640x960px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 640x960px

>>8700594
>Volcanos and the ocean produce more greenhouse gases than we do
I know >>8700929 and >>8700942 already debunked your tired old claims pretty well, but let me just reiterate how small the contribution from volcanism is.
human activity produces more than a hundred times as much CO2 as outgassing from volcanic activity. a few threads ago, some ignorant denier claimed that a supervolcano eruption would dwarf human CO2 contribution. so I ran the numbers for max estimates of CO2 mass fraction in magma, and total volume of ejecta, and it turns out that even if a supervolcano were to blow up in a massive eruption, the total CO2 released would only be about 1/3rd as much as humans produce in a year.

Help me sage this thread guys

>>8698761
>early data are incorruptible
>later corrections are false
what-everrr

SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE
SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE
SAGE
SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE

File: sage.jpg (22KB, 300x196px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 300x196px

>>8702035
sage goes in every field