/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10022513
>The accelerating (and importantly, relatively flat) GDP growth rate since 2016, as compared to the previous decades, speaks for itself
since when was GDP growth rate any kind of decent proxy for employment, wages, or consumer purchasing power? median wage growth is plateauing since 2016 after 7 years of growth in the wake of the recession.

>They pull those numbers out of their ass, and then assign an arbitrary dollar value to it and proclaim what a raging success it has been.
>I can't read a methodology section, therefore this report is false!
>oh wait, not the cost of compliance estimates, those are real
>but all the other figures are fake!
brainlet
>https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/emissionsfullreport.pdf
>https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/costfullreport.pdf

>Who showed up with no documentation demonstrating parentage, at which point she was separated, processed, and then reunited with her child
There was literally no reason to believe S.S. was NOT Ms. L's child, and she was taken away LITERALLY SCREAMING to be returned to her mother. And the authorities DIDN'T EVEN DO ANY TESTING to confirm parenthood until the ACLU sued. That's not genuine concern for any child's well-being; that's deliberate abuse of a refugee who did literally everything through the proper legal channels.
>A handful of incidents like this do not mitigate the fact that illegal immigration runs rampant
whataboutism. the presence of illegal immigration doesn't give the government license to mistreat legal refugees. (oh, and the law allows refugees, even those who entered the country illegally, to affirmatively seek asylum up to a year after entering.)
>asylum seekers by definition come with almost nothing. What benefit is there in letting them in?
this is literally the argument used to turn away ships full of Jews fleeing Nazi Germany ~80 years ago. I dunno about you, but I want my country to have some Goddamn moral authority.

>>9354961
>Look at the evidence for both sides and make your own conclusion.
this from the guy saying that we can't trust the evidence out there because we personally didn't gather it ourselves.
>I thought autists were supposed to love science/math?
some of us do. I dunno about you; maybe you're too stupid to understand how stupid you are and so your obsessive focus turned into willfully ignorant mythomania, or maybe you weren't properly challenged in school. either way, you've unfortunately gone to a place that is hard to return from: rejection of actual evidence in favor of a pseudo-profound ethos of "we can't really know anything (except what I say is true)"

>>9354934
>I don't fucking know what a shadow is: the post

Why, in a conservative field, does the force equal the negative gradient of the potential?

[math]F=- \nabla V[/math]


I know this relationship is true, but WHY is it that way?

>>8845417
ah, it's apparently from Carta Geologica d'Italia, by Bracciano. Foglio 143
>http://193.206.192.231/carta_geologica_italia/tavoletta.php?foglio=143

anyway, it's a stylized theta, ϑ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theta

this was a fun rabbit hole to fall down

>>8638500
>the chosen "adjustment" station was significantly moving more towards warmer, than the non-chosen station. Pic related.
That's not what the picture shows, you retard. The graph is not of temperature trends, but rather of ADJUSTMENTS MADE TO THE TRENDS. It says so right there on the y-axis!
Are you just incapable of reading at a 90 degree angle? I know you deniers aren't much for reading (you usually prefer text) but still...

>>8638505
>when Watts found out that Muller was a lying sack of crap, he blew him off. Exactly as he should.
Muller's 2003 and 2008 statements were on the record in 2011, when Watts preemptively endorsed the findings of Berkeley Earth. Watts didn't reject Muller's work when he learned that Muller had spoken in support of the idea that CO2 could cause warming. (And yes, Muller was indeed a skeptic; he believed that the current models and reconstructions used were statistically faulty. What he wasn't was a contrarian conspiracy theorist who denies the very existence of the greenhouse effect.) No, Watts suddenly rejected Berkeley Earth AFTER it produced the results that he had vowed to respect.

>muh surface stations
they assessed a third of all stations, and they didn't randomly select their sample, and that's not even the worst of it.
station siting can affect the OFFSET (the difference between the reading and the actual temperature) but not the TREND (a thermometer that reads .1C high will still tell you how much the temperature has risen by). this is supported by Menne et al., and yet Watts et al. claim the opposite without providing any supporting evidence. their claims regarding heat sinks hold up on shorter timescales, but will be drowned out by seasonal variability, to say nothing of longer-term changes in temperature.

>>8620451
>real estate pricing will tell you more about a neighborhood than anything else you can think of
look at this wannabe actuary of a sperglord over here. I guess sociologists can all go home now, this kid found the metric that tells you everything you need to know.

>>8589376
>is carbon dioxide pollution or food?
both and neither. you might as well ask whether atmospheric ozone is good or bad, or whether water is good for human health. (in other words, things that we need some of can be harmful at higher levels. the dose makes the poison.)

>>8503619
by being a high-functioning autist with an obsessive mind that latches on to patterns like a dog on a meatwagon

damn son, you're sure getting rectum ravaged over this. would it have killed you to use a different picture after what happened regarding it in the last thread?

>>7976661
pinatubo matters because it knocked down temperatures by half a degree C for several years, causing models established previously to overestimate warming (as they had no way of accounting for the eruption). it's dishonest in the extreme to pretend that that is evidence of the models' unreliability.
I don't give two shits about a 7-year trendline drawn from 1991 to 1998; I shall leave such cherry-picking of intervals to you and the rest of the window-licking brigade. I'll continue to look at the overall trend on the decade- to century-scale. You know, what's ACTUALLY going on.

>Posted is a graph showing that NASA has attempted to erase most of the cooling.
It must bother you terribly that both of the semi-labeled graphs you post show a warming trend, huh? I'd love to know where the red line comes from, honestly, as the current data from GISTEMP suggests that you've messed up the scaling pretty badly. Also, neither series is of global surface temperature, but rather of surface temperature ANOMALY, which means you've committed the mortal sin of forgetting about +C.
This is what happens when you don't label and cite your graphs, jackass!

>>7976664
>The hot-spot is the signature of positive feedback.
literally a lie, and apparently you don't know what positive feedback is.
>Ladies and Gentlemen, unfalsifiability in action.
except the hotspot isn't anywhere near the only evidence that would support climate change! it's like saying that evolution is a hoax because you found one kind of 9-inch flower but nobody's ever seen a moth with a 9-inch tongue in the area. it's like saying that the Standard Model is a lie because we haven't confirmed the existence of the Higgs Boson yet.

I was diagnosed with the assburgers as a child, spent most of my adolescence just not understanding how to interact with people. I finally got my spaghetti together in high school, and now I'm just considered weird.
I still don't pick up on a lot of social cues (never been able to tell when someone's flirting with me) and a lot of everyday shit just doesn't occur to me unless someone else points it out. I'm super high functioning, luckily, so my social ineptitude is balanced out by good pattern-recognition skills and the kind of analytical intelligence that makes people wonder how I do it.

I even have gf, though only because SHE hit on ME (I never would have made a move on my own due to aforementioned social stupidity)

>>7063595
yeah, but I'm high functioning at least. Asperger's may be an outdated diagnosis, but I fit its criteria pretty well.

I'm autistic (high functioning), which means I'm simultaneously really smart, spotting patterns and recognizing problems that slip past most people, and really dumb, being unable to read between the lines. I've got a hell of a mind but I'm very literal and many things just don't occur to me.

That said, this thread is shit, OP is a fag, pic probably related.