thelogicofscience

File: latest.png (340KB, 308x450px) Image search: [Google]

340KB, 308x450px

>>9118787
Our political system isn't revolving around how we should funnel money into it's politicians to prevent solar eclipses, no room for abuse. But I'm no denialist just against the extreme inefficiency of the preventative standards. If the first world really cared about climate change they would declare war on China and rainforest holocausters in South America and so on. You have to use your military to get what you want, for the good of humanity right? Or else we die out no? So stop the actual polluters.

>>9118787

It's not vaccines, it's the additives.

For climate change it's not the chemistry, it's the hilariously inaccurate models.

I'm not red pilled on evolution, sorry senpai.

>>9118854
>declare war on china
>rainforest holocausters
You mean the western bankers and investors paying them

>>9118787
The real denialists are those who insist theyre masters of understanding and can control all of reality. This is far from the truth. Historically, everything we think about science has a large probability of being false. In this sense, science zealots are slaves. The only thing we should use science for is practicality. Global warming discussion is not practical.

>>9118935
>>9118935
>the additives

Not this stupid thimerosal shit again that. None of that shit is true, vaccines don't cause autism

if the eclipse doesn't happen people will demand answers, it is easily falsifiable

>>9118935
>it's the hilariously inaccurate models.
Which models?

>googles furiously

>>9119706
>I deny it exists, therefore there is no tangible benefit to mitigation, so it's not practical
Uhuh...

>>9120140
That doesn't explain why there are people denying climate change right now. Even though temperatures are clearly rising at an unprecedented rate.

Nobody has ever cooked the books to predict an eclipse. Also, politicians who give grants worth hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars to scientists aren't bound to make literal *billions* if not *trillions* of dollars off predicting eclipses.

Always follow the money. Therein you'll find your answers.

File: Coleman.jpg (5KB, 233x267px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 233x267px

>>9118935
>It's not vaccines, it's the additives.
It's not the vaccines or the additives.
It''s just that Jenny McCarthy's career was on the ropes.

>>9120292
>Nobody has ever cooked the books to predict an eclipse.
Which climatologists cooked the books?

>Also, politicians who give grants worth hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars to scientists aren't bound to make literal *billions* if not *trillions* of dollars off predicting eclipses.
I'd love to hear how politicians are making billions of dollars off climate change.

Notice how these cretins always post the most inane conspiracy theories and then never back it up.

>>9118787
There were a bunch of Nazi scientist that said Einstein faked his eclipse findings to support relativity.

>>9120615
East Anglia CRU was caught red handed. And if Cap and Trade were to pass in the US, algore would instantly become one of the richest men in the world.

But you already knew this, do not clue why you asked.

predict the temperature in manila 10 years from now

predict when astrological bodies cross path

false equivalence

>>9120980
at one point it was. Until Einstien came along no one could predict Mercury's orbit. And before copernicus the models for orbits were so complicated it was extremely hard to calculate it

just saying, scientific models improve to make it feasible. Not saying temperature is one of them, that's far more complicated.

>>9120980
>astrological
can't tell if you're trolling or not

>>9120950
>East Anglia CRU was caught red handed.
Wrong. Take your debunked conspiracy nonsense back to /pol/.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

>And if Cap and Trade were to pass in the US, algore would instantly become one of the richest men in the world.
Yes clearly Al Gore doesn't actually believe anything he's saying, he's just in it for the money! Brilliant argument. Oh and how exactly would Gore get billions from cap and trade? No really, tell me how.

>>9120980
>predicting that the earth will warm due to observed greenhouse effect

>predicting the temperature in manila in10 years

False equivalency

>>9120242
Except that carbon taxes and the Paris accord don't ensure mitigation. I'm all for trying to control climate. I'm not even a denialist. I just recognize that statistically, we're more likely to be wrong than right.

>>9121027
That's not how statistics work you moron

Was the n-body problem solved?

>>9121027
>Except that carbon taxes and the Paris accord don't ensure mitigation
They are mitigation.

>I'm not even a denialist. I just recognize that statistically, we're more likely to be wrong than right.
You have no idea what you're taking about.

>>9121027
look up the definition of statistics please

>>9118787
This is a false equivalency, orbital mechanics is cut and dry, a layman likely can't determine the date of an eclipse by himself, but he would understand the mechanics behind it with ease, not to mention the mechanics of it are laid bare for us to see day in, day out. It's been directly observable and even understood on a surface level since before recorded history. The orbits of celestial bodies is such pure mathematics that no one is going to question the ease to which it can be done.

But the causes and symptoms of climate change, the efficacy and potential side effects of vaccines and the workings of evolution are not even close to directly observable, especially not to a layman. We have plenty of robust science and statistics and computer simulations and large scale medical testing and whatnot to determine the answers for these things. They're certainly likely to be at least mostly right, but these are all vastly complicated systems and science in no way makes any claim to have them fully understood. It is science after all. This is enough to sow doubt in the eyes of a layman.

I'm not saying it really makes sense for them to claim to have a better understanding of something than a scientist, they're clearly idiots.

>>9121084
>orbital mechanics is cut and dry,
ahem
>>9121044

>>9121044
Yes the n body problem has been solved as a power series for many years.

>>9121094
ahem
>It's been directly observable and even understood on a surface level since before recorded history.

>>9121097
yes, this is exactly the same argument used. Science of the magrins. I'm not saying it's a good argument, but it's been used for as long as recorded history

>>9118787
Because they've predicted eclipses before, and they keep doing it, and they're never wrong. It follows a simple pattern that you can follow by charting the sun and moon. You don't even have to understand heleocentrism to do it. Most climate predictions, on the other hand, have proved highly inaccurate. I'm not aware of any predictions that can really be made in the other fields.

>>9121297
>he said, bringing his inaccurate models to share with the class.

>>9120260
It's really simple : solar eclipse happened in a somewhat short time and the proof is right there, in the sky... no one will go against this. In the other hand, you have global warming in which the effects are not instantly and we never saw a global warming. People are idiots and can't see longer than their nose.

File: co2_temp_1900_2008.gif (13KB, 450x360px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 450x360px

>>9121572
>you have global warming in which the effects are not instantly and we never saw a global warming.
Yup, no global warming here.

Fuck, you people are delusional.

>>9121572
>we never saw a global warming
I don't understand what you mean. I think few people deny that global warming exists.

>>9121596
Your graph shows a strong correlation between co2 and temp since about 1980.

You can't use that to make statistically significant predictions 50 years out let alone 200 or w/e goalpost it's been moved to.

>>9121860
>Your graph shows a strong correlation between co2 and temp since about 1980.
We can draw strong correlations between CO2 and temperature (adjusting for solar variation) going back millions of years.

>You can't use that to make statistically significant predictions 50 years out let alone 200 or w/e goalpost it's been moved to.
Climate science isn't just blind curve-fitting.

>>9121860
>Your graph shows a strong correlation between co2 and temp since about 1980.
Oh wow, you must have done some sophisticated statistical test to determine that huh? Please tell me more.

What the graph shows is global warming, which you idiots claim doesn't exist.

>You can't use that to make statistically significant predictions 50 years out let alone 200 or w/e goalpost it's been moved to.
Then it's a good thing no climatologist makes predictions based simply on correlative data. What a moronic strawman. Are you even valuable of arguing in good faith?

>>9118854
China is the world's factory. They only have such high emissions because they make virtually everything for everyone else. Per capita they're lower than most countries before you even take into account the proportion of their goods that stay in their own borders.

File: gw-spectrum-tropical-pacific.jpg (119KB, 1024x763px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 1024x763px

To deny the eclipse is to deny orbital mechanics.

To deny global warming is to deny thermodynamics.

File: Solar_Spectrum.png (36KB, 800x595px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 800x595px

>>9122454

File: curve_s.gif (81KB, 974x781px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 974x781px

>>9122455

File: winning_move.png (33KB, 350x250px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 350x250px

>>9118787
>being correct in one instance guarantees correctness for all other instances

File: cbook.png (41KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 800x600px

>>9122457
By increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere, the amount of energy trapped in Earth's atmosphere MUST increase.
To deny this, you must deny:
>the black body radiation formula
>the Solar emission spectrum
>the Earth emission spectrum
>the carbon dioxide absorption spectrum
All of which are as cast iron as you can get in terms of data and modelling certainty. To argue against them is to literally try and argue what colour the sky is.

>>9122474
>To argue against them is to literally try and argue what colour the sky is.
damn...that's a pretty nice summary

File: IMG_0124.jpg (158KB, 1280x1440px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1280x1440px

>>9118787
>the logic of science
mfw i thought we were talking about inductive logic and it turns out to be a thread asking for bait.

>>9118787

Because eclipse deniers would quickly, and brutally, get their shit fucked up by evidence.
The efficacy of vaccines isn't quite so obvious if you don't have a scientific approach to the world and an understanding of statistics and probabilities, which A LOT of people don't have.

"This one thing happened to me ONE TIME AND NEVER AGAIN, so IT MUST BE the general rule" is a concept that is incredibly radicated in most uneducated people's minds.
Trying to teach them that correlation does not imply causation is probably harder than wrestling a black dragon with a lv. 1 sword and shield and no armor.

Put the two together, and the ONE person out of 35,000,000 who brings their child to get a shot just before realizing he's got the 'tism will never accept that it's unrelated, and will then go warning the others telling them that it's a certain fact that if you get a vaccine you end up autistic.
Throw in some charlatans who make fuckloads of money selling conspiracy books to all the other retards and you've got an explosive mix.

Ever notice how, in TV interviews and such, they always interview the crying mother in her home, near the pictures of her happy child before he got le ebil vaccine, etc? She commands compassion.
Then the conspiracy theorist appears, and comforts her and tells her it's not her fault or whatever, it's the evil system. He's looking out for her, he really cares!
By contrast the doctor is always interviewed in a sterile office, with cold white neon illumination, wearing a suit and tie or a lab coat, looking cold and detached as he speaks of mere statistics. He doesn't look like someone you can trust. Clearly he doesn't give a shit, he must have been paid by big pharma!

That's the power of communication.

>>9122454
>>9122455
>>9122457
>>9122474
I've seen these graphs posted in another thread. Can you tell me if I'm understanding these correctly?

1. 15,10, and 7um radiation mostly transmitted to Earth's surface
2. ~same thing
3. Earth's blackbody emission absorbed in atmosphere at 700,1100 cm^-1 by CO2 and O3
4. CO2 absorption spectrum

I'm least confident about the significance of the first two.
3.

>>9122623
Explain flat earthers then

>>9122653

It's not that easy to prove the earth is round to an uneducated hillbilly either.
A direct observation, which is the only thing that would convince them, would require some pretty expensive specialized equipment.
At the very least you need a telescope and a couple tens of miles of flat land with a tall structure on the other side.

You can't expect someone to go around the world trying to educate every single fucktard who bought into the latest conspiracy.

>>9122738
>It's not that easy to prove the earth is round to an uneducated hillbilly either.
you can see the curvature of the earth with the naked eye! It doesn't take expensive equipment

>>9122472
>affirming the consequent

>>9122743

They chalk it up to optical illusions.
Also seeing it at ground level isn't that easy, not even at sea.
To see it really clearly you need to be on a plane.

Eclipse Prediction: has a definitive ending, is testable

Global Warming: no ending or prediction, does not hold up to the slightest scrutiny

>>9122764
you can VERY clearly see it at sea. But maybe you are right that they would see it as optical illusion. Maybe I have a different perspective cause I live on the prairies and anyone who says they are a flat earther is denying sight. I can look out my window and see the curvature

>>9118787
just look at the flat earth community. half of them didn't even want to view the eclipse because they thought their memory would be wiped.

Climate change, vaccines and evolution are politics-centered issues. Eclipses are not.

>>9122785
How is evolution a politics-centered issue?

>>9122810
>See? God doesn't exist!!!!!!! :DDD
>Yes, evolution is fake!!!!
>No look how I put these bacteria in a petri dish with antibiotics and the only ones surviving are the resistant ones this proves we're all niggers HHAHAHAHA CHRISTKEKS BTFO LMAO also faggotry is normal because it's nature's way against overpopulation HAHAHA brb watching genetically superior Tyrone bang my bull's girlfriend for the good of the human species

>>9118787
>Where are all the denialists?

youtube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1zDQRSKnYo

>>9122810
Evolution is a liberal/commie/jew plot to lead children away from God.

That's why red states are constantly trying to remove evolution from the curricula.

Evolution doesn't stand up to the Scientific Method.

If it's not observable, if it's not reproducable, it's not science.

>>9122927
>If it's not observable, if it's not reproducable
thousands of years of agriculture beg to differ

>>9118935
>the additives
Did mama only raise you on preservative free turkey breast too you faggot?

>>9123270
>buying supermarket meat
Disgusting!

>>9122810
It is, at least in the US. It has been since Scopes monkey trial.