/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12770861
Oy vey goy,
listen to Al Gore. The polar ice caps melted in 2013, New York City is underwater, and the penguins have invaded Alaska. If you don't agree you're a science-denying bigot.

>>12770861
>there are so many more important enviromental problems that your taking the spotlight away from.
Source?

>>12770861
Its about power.

>>12770861
retard

>>12771000
>Trips wasted

>>12770998
Nice clickbait

>>12770888
>Al Gore
>Al Gore
>Al Gore
yaaaaaaawn

>>12770861
Shhh don’t give the game away. People might start to investigate and discover the true reasons for diseases.

>>12770957
Literally anything. Microplastics in lakes, macroplastics in the ocean, trash that won't biodegrade for 10000+ years, the pollution from cars and manufacturing not including CO2, etc. etc.

>>12771134
How are these more important and how is climate change stealing the spotlight from them?

>>12770957
Ever see rivers in documentaries about how shitty India is? Quite a few viscous black sludge rivers there, that just lump themselves into the ocean.

>>12771000
Checked, even though you’re a climate fag

>>12770861
Climate change and pollution are the two greatest threats to the species.

>>12771036
He won the Nobel peace prize for his work. Every climate scientist polled about his work lauded it as accurate. The failure of his clams reflect the failure of climate Science, faggot.

>>12770861
you are reported

>>12771408
you will eat the bugs
you will live in pods
you will own nothing
have no privacy
and you will be happy

>>12770861
climate science is mostly about providing a "meaning" to stupid people so the elite caste grabs total power. There is atmosphere change but it won't kill us. Maybe some niggers thats all.

Catastrophes to hedge against that are absolutely ignored: meteor-crash, bio/nuclear war, alien invasion.

Its all just a game. God is dead. CDC/WHO/Davos is your new religion, now suck transgender nigger-cock to make uncle Schwab happy.

Insects dying is by far the worst one, it's rapid and a certain MEE if not solved very soon. We need gigantic vertical greenhouses driven by MSRs, nature needs as much space as possible. We should also try to green the deserts, which should be easier now when the co2 is higher.

>>12771434
There is an arab cunt professor at Harvard who is developing a "gene drive" to prevent Malaria in Africa.

Only bad thing is that this gene drive will exterminate all mosquitos (and other species) exponentially

>>12771450
https://wyss.harvard.edu/technology/gene-drives/

they are already doing tests in Africa

>>12771450
>prevent Malaria
mRNA too
https://academictimes.com/first-vaccine-to-fully-immunize-against-malaria-builds-on-pandemic-driven-rna-tech/

>>12771259
And?

>>12771385
>He won the Nobel peace prize for his work.
So?

>Every climate scientist polled about his work lauded it as accurate.
Source?

>The failure of his clams reflect the failure of climate Science
Then show climate science failing.

>>12771430
>climate science is mostly about providing a "meaning" to stupid people so the elite caste grabs total power.
Proof?

>There is atmosphere change but it won't kill us.
Who said it would?

>>12770861
Ocean acidification is gonna wreck our asses

>>12772118
He won the prize because he accurately communicated the claims of climate scientists.
>The Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 was awarded to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former US Vice President Al Gore for their efforts to obtain and disseminate information about the climate challenge. In Gore's case, certainly, the award was grounded in his tireless campaign to put the climate crisis on the political agenda.
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2007/gore/facts/
>NASA climatologist James Hansen said that "Gore has put together a coherent account of a complex topic that Americans desperately need to understand. The story is scientifically accurate
That's just one example. Here are 19 more. Hopefully you accept WaPo?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/27/AR2006062700780.html
All 19 of the climatologists who had seen it lauded it for its accuracy.

So are we on the same page yet that Al Gore's claims are representative of the scientific consensus at the time? If yes, then let's continue. When's the last time you saw the movie? Do you remember the claims it made?

>>12771385
I've actually seen knowledgeable people on climate, who believe in climate change, destroy inacuraccies in so vote documentaries, such as the use of the co2/temperature graph of the past and claiming the causality one way when it is both ways.

>>12770888
finally someone is taking me cereal.

>>12772177
>He won the prize because he accurately communicated the claims of climate scientists.
No, he won the prize for activism. The Novel committee neither claims nor is qualified to claim that he accurately represented climate science. If he did, you would be able to show the science. But you can't, so you attack some irrelevant politician.

Here's an article quoting a scientist explaining what Gore got wrong. Most scientists studying Kilimanjaro said he was wrong:
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/kilimanjaro-not-a-victim-of-climate-change-uw-scientist-says/

>So are we on the same page yet that Al Gore's claims are representative of the scientific consensus at the time?
No, we're not. You're just attempting to conflate what he got right (the big picture) with the details he got wrong. Show scientists supporting specifically what he got wrong. Show him saying

>The polar ice caps will melt in 2013
>New York City will be underwater by 2021
>and the penguins will invade Alaska by 2021

And then show scientists that said this.

>>12772253

>>12772258
So, are the 20 climate scientists referenced who lauded Gore's scientific accuracy hacks?
>interdasting

>>12770861
yeah but it all basically leads back to one thing.
jews.

>>12772268
>The tiny errors scientists found weren't a big deal, "far, far fewer and less significant than the shortcoming in speeches by the typical politician explaining an issue," said Michael MacCracken, who used to be in charge of the nation's global warming effects program and is now chief scientist at the Climate Institute in Washington.
You're a liar.

>>12772268
The tiny errors scientists found weren't a big deal, "far, far fewer and less significant than the shortcoming in speeches by the typical politician explaining an issue," said Michael MacCracken, who used to be in charge of the nation's global warming effects program and is now chief scientist at the Climate Institute in Washington.

One concern was about the connection between hurricanes and global warming. That is a subject of a heated debate in the science community. Gore cited five recent scientific studies to support his view.

"I thought the use of imagery from Hurricane Katrina was inappropriate and unnecessary in this regard, as there are plenty of disturbing impacts associated with global warming for which there is much greater scientific consensus," said Brian Soden, a University of Miami professor of meteorology and oceanography.

Some scientists said Gore confused his ice sheets when he said the effect of the Clean Air Act is noticeable in the Antarctic ice core; it is the Greenland ice core. Others thought Gore oversimplified the causal-link between the key greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and rising temperatures.

Your own source disproves your argument.

>>12772285
>"I sat there and I'm amazed at how thorough and accurate," Corell said. "After the presentation I said, `Al, I'm absolutely blown away. There's a lot of details you could get wrong.' ... I could find no error."

>While some nonscientists could be depressed by the dire disaster-laden warmer world scenario that Gore laid out, one top researcher thought it was too optimistic. Tom Wigley, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, thought the former vice president sugarcoated the problem by saying that with already-available technologies and changes in habit _ such as changing light bulbs _ the world could help slow or stop global warming.

Are they hacks? I think you should email them and point out how dangerous their views are.

>>12771134
I mean, plastic is an important problem, but I wouldn't even consider it in the same league of importance as global warming.

>>12771249
You are exhibit A. You seem to be familiar with climate change, but not with the others. Wonder why that is.

Climate change is a long term, medium risk threat.

>>12772302
Microplastic in natural water sources has a disproportionate impact on the poor, who can't (and shouldn't have to) afford a Nestlé tax on what should be one of the most basic common goods. It interferes with fertility, among other things. It is literally a human rights violation against the poor. Climate change, on the other hand, has a disproportionate impact on the rich. It threatens waterfront property. It threatens vineyards in Europe owned by LVMH, AXA, etc. Cry me a fucking river.

>>12772311
>You seem to be familiar with climate change, but not with the others.
You're confusing not believing they are as important with not being familiar with them. You were supposed to provide evidence or reasoning to show they are more important but failed. Sad.

>>12772402
Eat my shit, wall street bootlicker.

>>12772406
Great argument, schizo.

>>12770861
You shouldn't be so intolerant of other people's religion.

>>12772380
Source?

>>12771000
>Cthulhu-sized eldritch horror below the bottom shark titled "Grand Solar Minimum"
ftfy

>believing climate change is real
I forget there's unironic gullible marxist basedboys on this board

>>12772380
It's not just humans endocrine disruptors present in most plastics have been devastating to marine life. This is not even getting into the effects nutrient pollution has had on sea life.

>>12771430
>climate science is mostly about providing a "meaning" to stupid people so the elite caste grabs total power
how the fuck would that enable the elite caste to grab total power? they already have total power and it comes in the form of the oil and gas industry. they're the ones trying to halt progress when it comes to solving climate change

>>12772711
Yeah, no.

>>12772673
>>12772662
Wow your arguments are so good I've changed my mind. Retarded fucks.

>>12772801
Yep.

>>12772834
You're so dumb it hurts.

>>12772897
Just how accurate have those predictions been in the past? The predictions about this have been shit for 50 years, and I'm not even against cleaning up the environment, but use those to shill to boomers on Facebook that need a disaster in their lifetime to stop pumping pollutants out instead of /sci/. There are problems with a shit ton of CO2, low quality air, ocean acidification, etc, but honestly, the coronavirus masks have surprised me on how well people do with breathing a lot more CO2.

>>12772834
dont pick apart the schizos delusions. It hurts his feewings.

>>12773004
See?

>>12772979
some midwits think being in /sci is only about asking for sources and being cunts as a form of debate
they are that annoying kid in school that was smart but nobody liked as he was a cunt

Climate is not real. Yes Climate is not real I am not talking about climate change.

>>12773004
The schizo turns to ad hom when he can't rebutt anon's point.

>>12773058
Models from 1982 predicted 2019 accurately.
Big oil knew exactly what it was doing.
https://youtu.be/FGVW9vJ773k
https://youtu.be/oS9VzE0Kqq0?t=2m

>>12773058
Models from 1982 predicted 2019 accurately.
Big oil knew exactly what it was doing.
https://youtu.be/FGVW9vJ773k [Embed]
https://youtu.be/oS9VzE0Kqq0?t=2m

>>12773058
Models from 1982 predicted 2019 accurately.
Big oil knew exactly what it was doing.
https://youtu.be/FGVW9vJ773k
https://youtu.be/oS9VzE0Kqq0?t=2m

>>12770861
You're an idiot.

>>12771423
>you will eat the bugs
>you will live in pods
>you will own nothing
>have no privacy
None of those things are true nor shall they ever be
>and you will be happy
The only thing you said that's even remotely true

>>12772979
>make claim
>won't provide evidence for claim
>waaaah why won't you take me seriously???

>>12773058
>Just how accurate have those predictions been in the past?
Which predictions?

>The predictions about this have been shit for 50 years
Source?

>>12773181
OK, I'll just call your claims bullshit from now. Happy, retard?

>>12774394
who gives a fuck about what you think, you rat brained monkey. keep eating my shit

>>12774399
Source?

>>12774399
LURK MOAR YOU DUMB FAGGOT.
Stupid fucking redfugees shitting up the board.

>>12770861
I wish everyone would just SHUT THE FUCK UP

>>12773946
>anon’s point
Source?

>>12774394
That not how sources work, retard. He explained that plastic in the water supply hurts the poor, and made a value judgment that he cares more about that class of people. What does “source” mean to you, in the context of a value judgment? Are you some sort of scripted bot just typing out nonsense?

>>12771000
>economic crisis will fix covid 19
>climate change will fix economic crisis
Nice!

>>12774629
>He explained that plastic in the water supply hurts the poor
No, he claimed it with zero evidence (along with the idea that global warming mainly affects the rich), and I asked for his source. Are you really so stupid that you can't follow a basic discussion?

>>12774406
>>12774412
>>12774423
>who gives a fuck about what you think, you rat brained monkey
Apparently you do, since you keep replying.

Your claims are bullshit. This is evident by the immediate chimpout when asked to substantiate them. Retards throw a tantrum when no one believes their lies.

>>12775325
>Your claims are bullshit.
Source?

>This is evident by the immediate chimpout when asked to substantiate them.
That's not a source, or even a logical argument.

>Retards throw a tantrum when no one believes their lies.
Source? Are you the primary source material for this?

>>12775315
>Are you really so stupid that you can't follow a basic discussion?
Are you really so stupid that you can't google microplastic in water?

>I asked for his source.
What do you need a source for? That poor people have less disposal income that rich people? It follows from the definition of the words, retard.

>>12775344
>Source?
Burden of proof is on you.

>That's not a source, or even a logical argument.
Why not?

>>12775353
>Are you really so stupid that you can't google microplastic in water?
Why would I need to? And that doesn't answer my question. Why can't you follow a basic discussion?

>What do you need a source for?
I already said. Do you have a learning disability?

>>12775398
>Burden of proof is on you.
You just claimed it's "bullshit" that plastic in the water supply doesn't hurt the poor.
You also just claimed it's "bullshit" that global warming mainly affects the rich.
Burden of proof is on you for both of those claims.

>Why not?
The occurrence of a chimpout doesn't substantiate your unsubstantiated claims, retard.

>>12775406
>Why would I need to?
To source a claim, maybe? Lol, what an absolute retard you are.

>And that doesn't answer my question. Why can't you follow a basic discussion? I already said. Do you have a learning disability?
None of that is a source, retard. It's empty rhetorical fluff.

>>12770861
I am beginning to think CC is a convenient way for Govts and big business to divert attention away from the important environmental issues. Not a conspiracy, but rather just a case of picking up and running with a ball. While attention is focused on CC people forget about...

Habitat destruction
Soil Degradation
Invasive species
Declining biodiversity
Pesticides and herbicides
Declining fresh water quality
Micro-plastics
The Phosphorus crisis
Air pollution
Water pollution
Land pollution
Deforestation.

There's only so many links in the food chain.

>>12775424
>You just claimed it's "bullshit" that plastic in the water supply doesn't hurt the poor.
No, I didn't. Learn how to read.

>You also just claimed it's "bullshit" that global warming mainly affects the rich.
Wow, good job. But to be clear, rejecting your claim doesn't mean I'm saying the reverse is true. It merely means you failed to substantiate it.

>Burden of proof is on you for both of those claims.
No, it's not. The burden of proof is on the one who made the claim. I'm rejecting the claim because you failed to provide proof.

>The occurrence of a chimpout doesn't substantiate your unsubstantiated claims, retard.
Right, it's what the chimpout is in place of that substantiates my rejection of the claim.

>>12775436
>To source a claim, maybe?
Why would I need to source your claim? That's your responsibility. Do I also need to make your entire argument for you?

>None of that is a source, retard.
Where did I claim it was?

>>12775446
>While attention is focused on CC people forget about...
Everything you listed is well known and gets plenty of attention. The claim that CC is getting too much attention is a distraction from CC.

>>12771423
Not all environmentalists want a socialist dystopian hell for the future. Look up Pentti Linkola.

"The most wretched of all current trends is of course the mass extinction of organisms, which has been escalating for decades and is still increasing in magnitude."

>>12775448
>No, I didn't. Learn how to read.
Yes, you did. And you have no source for that claim, so you keep dancing around the issue with empty rhetoric and misapplied tu quoque arguments.

>Wow, good job. But to be clear, rejecting your claim doesn't mean I'm saying the reverse is true. It merely means you failed to substantiate it.
I didn't make a claim, I asked you to substantiate yours.

>No, it's not. The burden of proof is on the one who made the claim. I'm rejecting the claim because you failed to provide proof.
Yes, it is. You made two claims, and keep failing to substantiate either. You lose.

>Right, it's what the chimpout is in place of that substantiates my rejection of the claim.
That's not how logic works, retard.

>>12775454
>Why would I need to source your claim? That's your responsibility. Do I also need to make your entire argument for you?
You should have a basic fluency with a topic before attempting to talk about it.

>Where did I claim it was?
So you admit that you have no source, and are intentionally resorting to empty rhetorical fluff in order to distract from your unsubstantiated claims?

>>12775463
DAT RITE!

I hear people talk about habitat destruction all the time! Every time I open reddit there's always some comment about invasive species wiping out native ones! Just fuck! I cant open any news media source without them bleating on about soil degradation every day!

>>12775480
>Yes, you did.
No, I rejected your claim that it mainly affects the poor. You're going to have to learn how to read if you want to discuss things in text form.

>And you have no source for that claim
Why would I need a source to reject a claim claim that someone should have but failed to substantiate? You seem to think that I need to expend more effort refuting a claim than someone else did making it. That's not how a rational discussion works.

> you keep dancing around the issue with empty rhetoric and misapplied tu quoque arguments.
Nice projection.

>I asked you to substantiate yours.
You're asking the wrong person. The burden of proof is not on me.

>Yes, it is. You made two claims, and keep failing to substantiate either.
Doesn't follow. My claims are rejections of claims that someone else made and failed to substantiate. Why are you trying to shift the burden of proof onto me?

>That's not how logic works, retard.
It certainly is. What is claimed without evidence can be rejected without evidence.

>>12775485
>You should have a basic fluency with a topic before attempting to talk about it.
You're confusing basic fluency with believing whatever bullshit someone claims without evidence. If it's so basic then it should be easy to substantiate. But for some reason no one can. There are two possibilities:

1. You know what you're talking about but refuse to show it and for some reason expect me to expend more effort in refuting a claim than the one who made it.

2. You don't know what you're talking about and can't show you do, so instead you stall the inevitable with whining and attempting to shift the burden of proof.

Number 2 seems a lot more likely.

>>12773956
lol
https://youtu.be/oS9VzE0Kqq0?t=40s

>>12775519
>No, I rejected your claim that it mainly affects the poor.
No, you made the positive claim that it's "bullshit" that plastics in the water mainly affect the poor.

>You're going to have to learn how to read if you want to discuss things in text form.
More empty rhetoric, still no source.

>Nice projection.
More empty rhetoric, still no source.

>You're asking the wrong person. The burden of proof is not on me.
Yes, it is. You made two claims, and you are unable to substantiate either. You lose.

>Doesn't follow. My claims are rejections of claims that someone else made and failed to substantiate. Why are you trying to shift the burden of proof onto me?
More empty rhetoric, still no source.

>It certainly is. What is claimed without evidence can be rejected without evidence.
That's not what you did. You tried to use a chimpout as evidence to substantiate both your first claim: that plastic in the water affects the rich at least as much as it affects the poor—; and your second claim: that global warming affects the poor at least as much as it affects the rich.
I called you out on that stupidity, and you've been squirming around like a worm on a hook ever since.

>>12775531
>You're confusing basic fluency with believing whatever bullshit someone claims without evidence.
No, I'm asking you to substantiate your claims, and you can't.

>>12775552
>No, you made the positive claim that it's "bullshit" that plastics in the water mainly affect the poor.
That's a negative claim. Are you actually this retarded?

>More empty rhetoric, still no source.
Attempting to shift the burden of proof doesn't work, get over it.

>Yes, it is. You made two claims, and you are unable to substantiate either.
Doesn't follow. My claims are rejections of claims that someone else made and failed to substantiate.

>That's not what you did. You tried to use a chimpout as evidence
It's eviscerated that neither you nor anyone else are going to substantiate these claims, even though you have the burden of proof. Therefore they're bullshit.

>to substantiate both your first claim: that plastic in the water affects the rich at least as much as it affects the poor and your second claim: that global warming affects the poor at least as much as it affects the rich.
Where did I claim that?

>I called you out on that stupidity
What stupidity? All you've done is attempt to shift the burden of proof. Keep trying, it just makes you look more desperate.

>>12775559
>No, I'm asking you to substantiate your claims, and you can't.
I don't need to, the burden of proof is not on me. What is claimed without evidence can be rejected without evidence.

>>12775728
>That's a negative claim. Are you actually this retarded?
No, if you claim a thing is bullshit, it is exactly a positive claim that the thing is false. It is not equivalent to saying you have doubt or are unconvinced about that thing.

>Attempting to shift the burden of proof doesn't work, get over it.
More empty rhetoric, still no source.

>Doesn't follow. My claims are rejections of claims that someone else made and failed to substantiate.
No, you made two claims and failed to substantiate either.

>It's eviscerated that neither you nor anyone else are going to substantiate these claims, even though you have the burden of proof. Therefore they're bullshit.
No, you made two claims. The burden of proof for those claims is on you and only you.

>Where did I claim that?
Do you not know the meaning of the word "bullshit"? That would certainly explain your failure of logic.

>What stupidity?
Citing a chimpout as if it were evidence for your claims about the permutated affects of microplastics and climate change on the poor and rich.

>All you've done is attempt to shift the burden of proof.
No, I've simply asked you to substantiate your claims, and you've failed miserably.

Keep trying, it just makes you look more desperate.
>More empty rhetoric, still no source.

>>12775733
No, the burden of proof for your two claims is on you and only you.

>>12770861
Go back to pol, schizo

>>12774816
holy dear fucking god a thousand fucking NIGGER times this. this anon gets it. you dont have to accept change, you just have to fucking endure it.

>>12775325
Keep spit shining that wall street asshole, bootlicker. I get it, the poor don’t pay your rent so you don’t care.

>>12770861
Indeed. I am far more concerned about soil depletion and industrial pollution of our waterways that is happening right now than some 1 degree increase 100 years from now.

>>12770861
Haven't heard much about it. It all just sort of disappeared when the weather tamed down and Biden took office. Ain't that surprising?

Or maybe I've just tuned out all the mainstream media mumbo jumbo. Hard to stop that after all the parroting of nothingburger conspiracies about white nationalism and shit. Just background noise that rots your brain and makes you needlessly bitter.

>>12775818
they're all after the diver, retard

>>12775786
>No, if you claim a thing is bullshit, it is exactly a positive claim that the thing is false.
That's a negative claim. You're retarded.

>It is not equivalent to saying you have doubt or are unconvinced about that thing.
Which has nothing to do with a negative claim.

The rest is just the same whining I've already replied to. The burden of proof is on you. When you don't meet the burden of proof, your bullshit will get called out.

>>12775790
No. Why would I need to spend more effort refuting a claim than the one who made it? You know you're wrong, you're just shitposting.

>>12776325
>That's a negative claim.
No, you made two positive claims.

>You're retarded.
More empty rhetoric, still no source.

>Which has nothing to do with a negative claim.
No, you made two positive claims. No amount of backtracking on your part will change that.

>The rest is just the same whining I've already replied to.
More empty rhetoric, still no source.

>The burden of proof is on you.
No, it's on you to substantiate your two positive claims.

>When you don't meet the burden of proof, your bullshit will get called out.
Indeed, and you've been squirming on the hook of your failure to do so for hours now.

>>12776339
>No. Why would I need to spend more effort refuting a claim than the one who made it?
I've never asked you to refute another's claim, only to substantiate your own.

>You know you're wrong,
No, I'm clearly right.

>you're just shitposting.
Of course, but so are you. The difference is that I have the winning position and all you can do about it is squirm or bail.

>>12776856
>No, you made two positive claims.
No, you're retarded.

>I've never asked you to refute another's claim, only to substantiate your own.
My own claim is a rejection of another's claim. Retard.

>>12770861
lol

>>12776978
>No, you're retarded.
More empty rhetoric, still wrong, still no source.

>My own claim is a rejection of another's claim.
No, both of your claims were specifically that another claim was "bullshit." That's not a simple rejection, it's an assertion of the logical complement.

>Retard.
How does it feel to bite your own tail?

>>12777009
>No, both of your claims were specifically that another claim was "bullshit."
Yes, thanks for agreeing with me.

>That's not a simple rejection, it's an assertion of the logical complement.
No, it's not.

the fags in this tread getting r*ddit baited...

>>12777195
>Yes, thanks for agreeing with me.
Np.

>No, it's not.
Yes, it is.

>>12777217
It's not.

>>12777863
Squirm.

>>12777900
Seethe

>>12777915
Cope.

>>12776994
Actually it was 4 agencies, and they claimed that russia meddled in the US election, not that trump colluded with russia. there's no way a real person made this...right?

>>12777920
Dilate

Climate change was the trial run for identity politics.

>>12773994
>you will be happy
>remotely true
I doubt it