Reminder that just because all the scientists in the world agree on something, that doesn't mean they're correct

...

the ice age that never happened due to anthropogenic climate change

imagine how much worse it would have been if we were entering what would otherwise have been a period of warming.

Science an epistemological method to find truths is never settled, however models that explain the behaviorbof nature given some conditions will keep working on those conditions even though we don't understand the underlying "truth". Weather obviously cannot be set as it's an aproximation based on macroscopic properties of matter, but in practice, we don't care if we have similar conditions for the environment.

Reminder that just because all the scientists in the world agree on something, that doesn't mean they're incorrect.

Also science changes, when scientists discovered atoms it was the smallest thing we knew about and that stayed as a fact until elementary particles were discovered. It doesn't mean there is something wrong with science, it just evolves and changes.
What matters is if we can make predictions based on theories. Global warming is observation with which scientist can draw predictions about future state of things.

Also
>Flat Earth
>Earth as a center of universe
> Heavier objects falling faster than lighter ones

None of these are models devised by scientific method. Nice strawman M8.

Hey there is more!
Settled science is a ridicolous idea and any scientist proclaiming science to be settled is an idiot.
That doesn't mean current science is nesecarilly wrong. (Nirvana fallacy)

>remember that the general con census on proven fact doesn't make it correct?
>how DO I tell the sky is blue if I'm blind?

None of those were settled science except for the last, revisionist mongoloid.

science.time.com/2013/06/06/sorry-a-time-magazine-cover-did-not-predict-a-coming-ice-age/
Get rekt, loser.

who benefits from global warming being true

No one, literally.

Wall Street.

Enjoy your cap and trade (financialize EVERYTHING goyim!) and your carbon tax (tax EVERYTHING goyim!).

Bill Nye is a filthy Jew rat.

>heavier bodies fall faster than light ones
Honestly how did it take people so long to figure out that that's wrong? That's some shit an 8 year old could disprove by accident.

thank god some sanity on this board for once
And QM is wrong.

The majority of scientists were also predicting global warming in the 70s. For some reason the focus was on the minority that were predicting global cooling.

...

Because heavy objects are harder to lift, so it intuitively seems like they "want" to fall faster.

No one, but the rednecks who work in coal mines will probably lose their jobs.

It's the 21st century. It's time for them to get real jobs.

I agree

The following statements have no counter examples

1: The earth is round
2: We landed on the moon
3: Global warming is real and man made
4: Blacks have a lower IQ than whites

These are settled sciences and those who disagree are deniers.

Because in order to acquire this cheap fuel you need to accept:
>thousands of people dieing in mining accidents and through air pollution
>huge chunks of landscape getting torn up to mine this shit
>risks of huge ecological disasters when things get spilled during drilling or transport operations
>being politically dependent on the good-will of shitty middle-eastern countries, Russia etc.

Coal and oil are really kind of shit. Climate Change is just the cherry on top.

>one of thesethings is not like the other dooo dooo

(((Science))) is on the spectrum

It's easy to not appreciate air resistance, a bowling ball and feather being the prototypical example. You need some pretty unusual conditions to observe that, so it's only natural to be somewhat skeptical.

youtube.com/watch?v=E43-CfukEgs

>not looking for sources of energy other than fossil fuel
Do you not realize the cash cow such a discovery would be for the individual who discovers it and manages to keep it a secret?
>no more petrol bill
>no more electricity bill
>personal metal purificator

Heat loss is a pretty shitty metric to draw renewables are unilaterally supperior.

ourfiniteworld.com/2016/08/31/intermittent-renewables-cant-favorably-transform-grid-electricity/comment-page-20/#comments

Like it or not cost/price is a metric for efficiency on economic terms.

But heavier bodies do fall faster than light ones, or am I being memed?

>natural gas
no. we can make that shit pretty damn easily.

Just because the truth is a spectrum doesn't mean you are incorrect about everything.

people who deny climate change are just lazy capitalist faggot degenerates who cant stop eating meat, driving shitty vehicles, and buying mcdonald's plastic toys.

So people whos lives as they know it depend on the modern world and the technical advances it has afforded them?

We could all just return to the stoneagen sure. Eat leaves, sleep on the ground, shed our clothes, live by the light of only the sun and moon. You first.

>Reminder that just because a few scientists in the world disagree on something, that doesn't mean they're correct.

>this brainlet doesn't even know about negative weight

That doesn't make them incorrect either

Objects with negative mass are attracted by objects with positive mass, brainlet.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass
>Although no particles are known to have negative mass, physicists [...] have been able to describe some of the anticipated properties such particles may have:
>Positive mass attracts both other positive masses and negative masses.

two spheres of the same volume where 1 is composed of solid lead, and the other is composed of solid plastic will not fall at different enough rates to be measurable without extremely sensitive instruments.

However, they do actually fall at different rates due to the inverse square law of gravitational effects but the fact that the mass of the earth is so much greater than the mass of either sphere washes out almost completely and difference in the force between the spheres and the earth.

Nature is what is "correct" and it wants to kill you; science is the only thing that might be able to actually prevent that

The question is is the "modern world" going to exist in a 100 years? Could the "modern world" function without the internal combustion engine and if not what happens when the oil runs out? Hundreds of millions of people in the third world think someday they will have American tier living standards, can that actually happen without depleting the resources the "modern world" functions on? If you don't want to live in those conditions your offspring may have to at some point if we don't have any way of conducting our affairs on a more sustainable basis.

Twas a shitpost m8y. I've never heard of negative mass