Professors tell students: Drop class if you dispute man-made climate change

A course not about climate change refuses to debate climate change?

Seems reasonable.

Imagine being a physics professor and suddenly this faggot out of nowhere tries to argue with you that the Earth is flat

Would you spend an entire class debating with him? Nah, you would tell him to fuck off back to where he came from

>climatologists

You do realize these people are not actual scientists, right?

general relativity. special relativity, quantum mechanics.

now what?

Who the fuck cares about global warming in 2016? Yes it's happening and no there's nothing we can do about it short of genociding 3/4 of the human population.

Where did you learn that? Stormfront or FoxNews?

A regression model of climate change, as accurate as it may be, is no less of an approximation than Newton's model.

That's not university material in a first world university

Venezuela I would think you'd try to do something more productive with your 5 hours of internet time per week

>nuh uh I'm right because of the letters behind my name
>that's right I'm appealing to authority and I'm the authority
>university is not a place for debate or discussion young man
W E W

That's Portuguese you 'tard.

or you can just demonstrate that the Earth is clearly not flat.

I even had a debate about Tycho Brahe's geocentric system in university.

I like how your school works, Veeky Forums should be like that. It's not like we have people arguing against evolution or claiming the earth is flat here every day. Climate deniers should stay on /pol/ or /x/.

No it's not since the day the amount of knowledge aviable in the world but greater than one could ever learn.

One goes to university to listen, not to talk

>mfw libtards cannot into a natural geological cycle

Do you cucks not realize we're still technically in a glacial age? That it's been dozens of degrees hotter on earth in the past?

>One goes to university to be indoctrinated, not to talk back
ftfy shlomo

Go away /pol/yp

aps.org/policy/statements/15_3.cfm

APS made a formal statement about it, and they usually only do that for really dumb shit people believe like "magnetic fields give you cancer."

It's not a debatable topic because there is scientific consensus.

>I can't address his argument directly but he used the word cuck so I win

Let's debate the axiom of choice in real analysis class

Oh wait, you can't because real analysis is bullshit! Checkmate libturds.

What's the argument? That it has been hot in the past and therefore we shouldn't worry about it getting hot again? The problem isn't that the world will get so hot we'll all catch fire, the problem is that the climate will change rapidly, causing rapid shifts in which land is best for farming faster than humans can react.

oops I didn't post the full statement
aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

>scientific consensus is equal to empirical truth

So we'll have a global famine. Sounds good to me. Hopefully a lot of third world trash will disappear. Green revolution was a mistake

>debating peer-reviewed science in introductory/bird courses
OP this is you

>So we'll have a global famine. Sounds good to me. Hopefully a lot of third world trash will disappear.
Enjoy your refugees.

/pol/ trash needs to leave

If you don't trust the scientific method then why are you here flat-earther? My bet is on shitposting/flaming/trolling which I guess I need to remind you is against global rule 3.

lol, you probably think psychology and sociology are sciences as well. That's cute :)

Global warming is a hoax and a lie made up by Al gore that the liberals use to get votes from college age tree hugging faggots. Now its called climate change because the icebergs didn't instantly melt and cause the day after tomorrow to happen and it won't happen ever in a long time. Climate change doesn't exist. Fuck the trees, fuck the bees, kill all the pandas. Fucking pseudo intellectual environmentalist pricks.

>not trusting the scientific community because of some minor epistemological discrepancy between evidence and truth
I'm sure you're a wonderful person who knows many things.

Dangerously approaching peak Poe m8

Hey, anything to make premeds angry is a good thing.

Dude in the comic is completely right. Quantum theory is just a placeholder system. It's largely incomplete and can't be reconciled with General Relativity.

>extremely inefficient companies don't bribe governments to grant them subsidies
>researchers don't have any agenda, they are perfect neutral human beings, not like their whole career and their mentor's career would fall apart if global warming is bullshit, not to mention cuts to research funding

If scientists wanted money, they would take the bribes from the oil companies

But 99% don't, so there's clearly a lot of integrity among scientists

>what a bunch of respected 'authorities' believe is as good as truth

By that logic god must be real too

>muh environmentalist/government conspiracy!!!
>muh bribery
FoxNews is that way young faggot ------>

You think you have a problem with refugees now? Just wait until that arable land starts shifting...

How so? the smartest people such as Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, and Sam Harris are atheist

You're right I forgot about that, better trust Fox News.

Same thing happened to me with evolution. They gave no time to creationism, which is heinous where I come from.

That's because there is extensive evidence that has been extremely scrutinized and tested (because idiots like you refuse to believe climatology and geophysics reports) that indicate humans have caused and exacerbated climate change to an unnatural level. Humoring the pandering simpletons who want to deny science to feel good about their gluttonous and wasteful behavior or their religious ideologies is counterproductive to educating people who want to know the science behind current knowledge and it implications. It's a massive waste of time to explain to someone who wont listen that the science has been tested and observed to be consistent with current models and theories.

>user hopes for the death of hundreds of millions

You are a great and noble man.

they stopped calling it global warming because nobody notices average temperatures and regular people don't think a 1 degree change is a big deal. If I changed your body's lead concentration by the same percentage that the temperature is changing, you'd die pretty quickly. 1 or 2 degrees difference can cause huge changes in the chemistry of the oceans and that effects all life on earth.

But you're a shill, so why am I responding?

>minor epistemological discrepancies
>on the basis of which governments in many countries are spending billions upon billions in taxpayer dollars on something that might not a) be a problem or b) have a viable solution

Yeah I think it's worth being skeptical

Mate, Dawkins and Harris are not that smart. I was with you until then.

>hurr durr FoxNews

are you going to deny governments around the world grant subsidies to "renewable energy" crap? They would be broke without it, and it's not like politicians are good-willed people.

>1 degree changes
Boohoo a few microorganisms die in the water. Big deal. Plankton genocide. So what?

Top jej

>he thinks he'll be nice and safe and comfy while the remaining 80% of the world lays down and peacefully starves
holy fuck where do these idiots come from?

All eight are atheists.

Pretty sure they're going to die anyway m8, it's called mortality. Why feed a hungry kid today so he can be hungry again tomorrow? Seems a tad cruel if you ask me

To be sceptical in any field you have to know that field.

If you deny man-made global warming, you are probably brain-dead

What are automatic weapons and guided missiles?

As an astrophysicist I have to ask;
What the fuck are you talking about? That 'approximation' hold true for all non-relativistic inertial frames which is significantly more quantifiable and correct at describing reality than the largely observable and non-formulaic* fields of meteorology and geophysics. Math trumps observation when it comes to predictive models every time when the models describe reality so accurately that deviations literally can't be seen without approaching the most extreme physical parameters.

*geophysics while having many models and formulas are intrinsically less accurate due to chaotic properties and the large number of variables that can't be easily obtained or at all and often have non-analytical models which are by definition less accurate than analytical models.

>genuine stupidity

Pretty sure you're going to die anyway m8, it's called mortality. Why feed a hungry kid today so you can be hungry again tomorrow? Seems a tad cruel if you ask me

Autistic as fuck.

>he thinks 1st-world countries are going to successfully just build giant walls and shoot all refugees on sight
>he also thinks that the problem will be limited to refugees, and not straight-up global war.

Huh, it's kind of funny that you bring this up because I had the same talk with my students yesterday.

I told them I couldn't blame them because they probably grew up being told by their parents or former teachers or whatever that there was still a real debate and 10 years ago or so when those adults formed their view of the subject that was more defensible, but if they honestly doubt it they're free to google and come talk to me after class.

I don't feel bad about saying that. I've said similar things about magic crystals and creationism.

so you're the asshole that keeps posting these creationist comics? How big is your collection?

"As someone who doesn't work in geophysics let me tell you about geophysics."

>Pretty sure they're going to die anyway m8, it's called mortality

Have quite a few, ranging from goofy in their representation of both parties to downright distasteful strawmen.

>bunch of starving brown people are going to successfully invade one of the great salt water powers

Still geophysics is chaotic in nature and thus he is right

Do you teach 6th graders or something? Because you seem to be around that intellectual level

/pol/
You should know better

So talk to me for a second here. Why do you feel the need to bring /pol/ to Veeky Forums? Is this your kind of social justice activism? To try and convert anyone ignorant enough on Veeky Forums to your noble red pilled cause?
This is your thread, word for word. This is technically a raid on Veeky Forums and I don't know why the mods haven't deleted your thread yet.

Boy have I got news for you.

These are not citations nor do they show that climate change has more evidence than newtonian mechanics. Newtonian mechanics describe the affect of motion and acceleration on inertial frames of reference without relativistic affects.
Quantum mechanics focuses on the wave-particle nature of matter and light which is almost only pertinent on the atomic level where Newtonian mechanics make no claim of describing.
Relativity only comes into play when matter approaches the speed of light, while Newtonian formulas can't account for the slight formulaic change that accounts for the velocity relative to 'c', it doesn't need to because the difference between values of the same situation at non-relativistic speed with both Newtonian and relativistic equations would differ by ~10^-15 to 10^-16. These are scarcely even measurable uncertainties.

Fucking hell, of course man-made climate change is real but that doesn't give you dumbfucks to use hyperbole to inflate or deflate the predictability and accuracy of fields of math and science to yell at some dumbass saying 'climate change, the big bang and evolution are fake'. You just show that you're as dogmatic with your position without looking at the actual evidence of whatever topic you're talking about. A theory doesn't need to have more evidence than every other theory to be correct you insecure assclown.

>he thinks they need to invade

The "brown people" already living in 1st-world countries will just vote to allow more brown people in.

fuck off, it's a branch of geophysics and atmospheric physics which is as rigorous as astrophysics and electrical engineering.

found the redneck bible-bumper

>admitting to going on /pol/

Enjoy your ban Hitler

> Medical Humanities in the Digital Age
> We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change
well duh. The class has nothing to do with climate change

also
> Humanities
or

This reeked of a /pol/ thread so I figure I'd do the OP a favor. Instead of simply saying I could do the legwork and go find the climate change denial thread for him to talk with his peers. I went to /pol/ to find the thread and lo and behold it's the exact same one, little suspicious no?

It doesn't need to be compatible with relativity so long as it describes the subset of reality it attempts to. For example you're not going to use statistical mechanics to entropically derive how far a block will slide down a ramp.

Also the entire math crap in the comic is entirely wrong. while it is a philosophical question whether math is man-made or discovered it's not philosophical to say that all of the tools in every form of math are built from axioms which must be assumed (like that 1 =/= 0). Differing axioms still work and everything still holds true but in a trivial sense (assume 1=0, by axioms of addition 1+1 = a where we assign '2' to be the number for a still works. the integers can still be made, multiplication still works, etc.

(I have degrees in Math and Astrophysics btw)

>(I have degrees in Math and Astrophysics btw)

And I have a PhD in fucking your mother.

Quantum mechanics will never suffice to explain anything above the atomic level, which happens to be where the bulk of scientific phenomena occur.

Well ignoring the fact that rising sea level will in fact fuck humans as well, it more a matter of the effects this temperature increase are having with the climate. For example changing the convection patterns between the ocean and air that have caused larger hurricanes, changes in meteorological behavior in places like decreased or increased rainfall which cause ecological imbalances. Whatever though, it's not like anything can happen to you in your protective bubble right.

Hey dumbfuck, I explained the differences between the fields of science. And as an astrophysicist I did study geophysics, as well as quantum, atmospheric, relativity, E&M, statistical mechanics, thermal physics fluids etc. and I have a math degree, so yes I know about the mathematical methods of both Newtonian mechanics and atmospheric modelling, having specialized in mathematical modelling for astrophysics, and one is analytical while the other is numerical. Not once did I claim man-made climate change is fake nor did I belittle the fields of geophysics you dense motherfucker. Believe or not but different fields of science collect data and formulate theories differently, and math formulas that have been tested for centuries and shown to work have a higher accuracy than modern day climate modelling which relies on simplified formulas for computational models.

Imagine a biology class in which debate about evolution was allowed. No, we will not "teach the controversy", dumbass.

>inb4 flash memory
Again it doesn't need to explain why the planets orbit, it explains things on the quantum level and that works.
>never suffice to explain anything above the atomic level
Also just to fuck with your point, relativity and quantum are used in conjunction for describing neutron stars and black holes for an example where quantum is used to describe the quantum behavior on the relativistic scale. but again, quantum works for where it works.

>implying anything that can't be disproven is equally valid because "muh empirical truth"

>Scientific consensus is about "authority" and not science
OK.

>electrical engineering

>""""""""""""""""""""""""""rigorous""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'

cute

What exactly is subjective or ambiguous about electrical engineering?