/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10859677
Because overall they are the biggest perpetrators and it doesn't benefit them to admit and take responsibility.

>>10859677
Used to being lied to, fucked with, and maneuvered like cattle. We're also an environment where eg Agenda 21 can't help but be glaring.

They also clamp, vaccinate, and circumcise. Among other things. Why would we ever believe? Seriously, you imagine looking me in the face and telling me that I should believe in this place and its power structures. Any of us. You have no idea how integral being fucke dover is in our culture.

Because believing in man-made climate change makes you a commie, atheist, nigger, Mexican, muslim, Chinese and probably you hate baby Jesus and freedumbs.

>>10859711
You forgot libtard

>>10859677
on the one hand we have one party saying it won't be a problem, don't worry about it, you can shit where you eat as much as you want and nothing bad will ever happen

on the other hand we have a party that says it'll be a disaster and the only way to stop it is to give them absolute power over every aspect of your life, and keep adding on unrelated shit to their plan

so uh we're in a bit of a pickle here. don't think there's a way out without hanging all the politicians

>>10859716
And a faggot and/or uncut

>>10859724
>faggot
Why the homophobia?

>>10859677

Because they're retards with short term memories. It hasn't even been a whole century yet and they forgot that the Dust Bowl happened, was triggered by bad farming practices, caused mass migration from the state, killed/made people sick and required the government to step in to fix the ecological problem.

They have first hand experience of it within the last hundred years and they're still in denial that man-made climate change is feasible.

>>10859677
They aren't "skeptical" -- they are in denial.

>>10859734

On the contrary. There are those of us who accept, for discussion, the premise of the science-and don't care. And it is we who are the wisest of all.

t. global warming nihilist

>>10859742

Then enjoy the spread of Lyme disease Mr. Nihilist. It's probably best you adopt the neet lifestyle to avoid getting bit by the ticks.

>>10859733

There is no such thing as an individual human being with "first-hand" experience of things that happened 80 years ago (no, very old people don't count). Nor is it valid in this case to point to living historical memory, for the same reason.

On the contrary (again). First, The rest of the world is stupid to harbor ancient historical grudges, to hang onto what's already been lost, in vain, rather than trying again and picking themselves up by their bootstraps like men. This is exactly the problem with human religious tradition itself (bad), as opposed to inhuman cybernetic capitalism (good). By stupidly holding onto your grudges rather than creating anew, you demonstrate that you are a weak human, rather than a strong, fat, diabetic American cybernetic husk.

>>10859677
science is a great source of info... except when it isnt. case in point computer science and electrical engineering. i submit into the record the "everything you know about consumer electronics is a lie" argument your honor

where to start?... hmmm lets see oh i know capacitors. a staple of consumer electronics. the corner stone even really. whats a farad? a collumb volt ? a volt amp second ? a lie. according to every resource a 1uf capacitor cannot power a led. it wont provide a 1.5 - 3 volt source at full charge... but it does. you can find 1uf capacitors in many older pieces of consumer electronics. new stuff uses way bigger or much smaller capacitors. you can charge it in a instant with a 9 volt them terminate the leads across a led and assuming it will discharge in the right direction since the led is a diode which restricts the flow of current in 1 direction the led will come on for a brief moment. if your using a small electrolytic cap this is simple to explain. it discharges on the negative side so turn it around 180 degrees or have the led arranged so it will accept that voltage like the dirty whore it is

but thats not all. whats a p channel mosfet? is it a cumbersome electronic switch with "high side switching" ? its a normally on electronic switch .does it require negative voltage to operate the switch? no. are the data sheets bullshit? yes. when a sufficient POSITIVE voltage is applied to the gate it cuts off

>>10859765
continued


how can we trust science when we cant trust data sheets? apologize black science man. you have the nerve to stand before humanity and talk of global warming when people were able to successfully sue colleges for electrical engineering degree costs they had paid for a few years ago because all the shit in their text books was lies and a professor even said before a classroom of students he didnt have to explain why what he was saying was lies when a brown student present the class lesson in a real life model that didnt work . oh sure he will accept bjs from homely girls for As but he doesnt even know what hes babbling about

and thats not all. whats a proper operational frequency for most transformers? allegedly 60 hrz .what happens when you use a higher frequency allegedly? thermonuclear armagedaboom and your wires burn. how high is to high? 10 hrz higher than listed on the spec sheet. ... all LIES. you can go way higher 60 hrz isnt even close and wires burn half the time even at listed ratings because most datasheets are lies and the damn thing runs at 20 hrz not 60 anyways. arc lighters might not live long lives but they tend to run in kilohertz ranges. for hobbiest and science fairs you would think they would explain the reality. but they dont

pinterest trolls with circuit diagrams flooding their portfolio and none of them work. google showing patents awarded to random people with circuits that dont work when you google a circuit type

is a positive voltage regulator a switching regulator... no expect when it is. look at the bloc diagrams for both and tell me you dont think the positive voltage regulator is a off brand half retarded cousin of the switching regulator and some times a company basically made them even more similar... so much so they were the same thing

>>10859770
and the finale


can i pass current through a transformer to the secondary windings without ac? yes. all you need is 1 led to prove it. get a inductive load that has 2 sets of windings a 1:1 ratio. put the led across 1 side just soldier that shit on. put a 9 volt across the pins on the other side. the led will stay on at 1/3 the brightness if you directly connected it. according to your precious science thats not possible as electromagnetic coupling only occurs with movement which raising and lower of the magnetic field accomplishes since the primary and secondary windings are in a fixed position its the only way for movement to be the conduit for coupling to occur

i solved the davinci code and your a nigger

>>10859765
>>10859770
>>10859772
you read like a schizophrenic electrical engineer that's high from huffing soldering paste

>>10859684
>overall they are the biggest perpetrators
Wow u r dumb
Have you heard of
CHINA?
INDIA?
FREIGHT & CRUISE SHIPS?
AIRPLANES?

get real, lady

>>10859733
>Dust Bowl
versus
>Sahel Desert Region
Dust bowl never had a chance.

>>10859677
>>10859684
>>10859711
Are you implying that Americans are some majority of who don't believe the lie that is "anthropogenic climate change"? It seems like Americans are a scapegoat to many, who want to make a lazy on a high horse-argument.
Regards, European

>>10859677
same retarded shit as with tobacco before
https://youtu.be/iMxMPdkcknM?t=21m

>>10859677
same retarded shit as with tobacco before
https://youtu.be/iMxMPdkcknM?t=21m

>>10859733
so because they are cultureless depersonalized swines
https://juliusevola.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/24-american-civilisation.pdf

>>10859760
>picking themselves up by their bootstraps
boots don't have straps any more, Grandpa

>>10859677
There are a few reasons for denial. For GW in general:
- It means you would have to change some habits, possibly quite radically. Some people find this unacceptable. They are here on this planet with an entitlement attitude that anything they do within the law is their perogative, and social cooperation/responsibility is for losers anyway.
- It means your vested interest in the fossil fuel industry is at risk - perhaps in the form of stocks, or your business model relying on the low monetary cost of using fossil fuels. Accepting GW would mean changing the business model, and that takes time, effort, and money. This is unacceptable.
- Accepting anthropogenic GW means accepting some degree of fault for a lifestyle that is destroying the planet. If you have a conscience, you will also have a hard time dealing with this awareness. So denying the human origin of GW deflects the 'fault' away from yourself and onto whatever convenient alternative theory some sciostitute fabricates. If you don't have a conscience, the alternative theories provide a way of offering ignorance and/or stupidity as a more acceptable excuse for denial than admitting you're just an asshole.
- Maybe one is genuinely stupid, and actually believes it's not the fault of humans, or even that GW is real.

>>10859677

This >>10859872, down to having some of the same people doing the same scripts as before IIRC. Add the culture wars the conservatives kicked up in the 70s/80s being based on splitting the country into diametrically opposed camps with AGW being one of the issues involved, and you have a very entrenched and self-perpetuating phenomenon of science denial.

Because no of the solutions presented seem like solutions. How the fuck is a tax going to solve anything? Literally making 80% of the planet sterile and reworking society into a serf/scientist overlord structure to reduce carbon emissions would be a solution. It’s radical and insane but it actually sounds like a solution.

appeal to authority just doesn't work on a lot of americans, they like to know exactly how things work or they will not pay for anything.

Climate change will never be addressed until there's some way to make money doing so.

>>10859677
Because it got co-opted by on of our political factions very early, and concern for climate change became equated with support for their particular nostrums for addressing it. Oversimplified, it sort of became "if you are concerned about climate change, you have to be for wealth redistribution and higher taxes and social justice and rejecting technologically-provided standards or living." The response to that was not very nuanced, it was basically, "Nope, I am not for that so take your climate change and go pound sand."

There was no real political oxygen for "I am concerned about climate change, but I want to address it in these other ways that aren't a front for leftist ideology and might actually more effectively address the issue."

>>10859789
Wow, well spotted.

>>10861930
>tax going to solve anything?
making a product more costly for firms and more expensive for consumers decreasing it's supply and demand

>>10862019
>very early
many scientists would argue the 90s were already too late

How can I differentiate between man made climate change and natural climate change?

>>10859797
They do it less than America. India does like 8%. China does americas manufacturing. Now that America is trying to take it back, America will probably become the leader in emissions again.

>>10862292
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=How+can+I+differentiate+between+man+made+climate+change+and+natural+climate+change

>>10859797

>>10862283

Just like how in the face of austerity measures, all countries decided to sit down and balance their budgets towards paying off their accumulated debt?

Oh wait. When their backs are up against the wall all politicians balk at the hard decisions, debt ceiling just to name drop. And they controlled both the ins and outs on that.

>>10862318
what's that got to do with the carbon tax tho

>>10862295
Whelp, I spent some time reading some grabasstic bullcrap.

>>10859677
Idk about other Americans but there are ancient port cities in land lock and others under the sea. That tells me that level fluctuations have been pretty significant in the last ten thousand years and I'm guessing that's because of different amounts of ice. Efficiency and a clean environment are their own rewards. The rest is politics. It stinks of lies and money. Thats my reason.

>>10861930
>How the fuck is a tax going to solve anything?

The main purpose of the CO2 tax is to create a level playing field. Cheating with cheap tech that puts out a lot of CO2, Firm A won't get a competitive edge over Firm B that use a clean way of making the product.
The tax collected is not the main point, it's peanuts compared to the effects it has when firms adjust their practices to maximize their profits.

>>10862392
yes co2 is an externality and a tax on its production is a good way to internalize the cost into the firm's cost function

>>10859760
>>10859765
I believe you should stick to meds and not posts buddy.

>>10862019
>>10859723

You are at the tail end of the kicking boot if you think climate science wasn't deliberately politicized by fossil fuel industry and lobbyists to keep you from rationally addressing, and almost certainly harming their business. This idea that climate science is nothing more than a "leftist front" or that solutions are some radical "big guvirmins interventions of your freedums" is yet another smoke screen on pangs of a dying horse. If you stop falling for the political projection, and the oetry culture war ranking point scoring, you'd understand there are only a few solutions to the porblem and they all require massive cultural and social changes.

Because Americans have been conditioned since childhood to suck on the corporate dick and hate communism. So when someone comes along and tells them corporations maybe don't hate their best interests in mind and the way to stop them is to tax them, they see their two worst fears come together and just go into denial mode.