Thelogicofscience

Nobody has ever cooked the books to predict an eclipse. Also, politicians who give grants worth hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars to scientists aren't bound to make literal *billions* if not *trillions* of dollars off predicting eclipses.

Always follow the money. Therein you'll find your answers.

>It's not vaccines, it's the additives.
It's not the vaccines or the additives.
It''s just that Jenny McCarthy's career was on the ropes.

>Nobody has ever cooked the books to predict an eclipse.
Which climatologists cooked the books?

>Also, politicians who give grants worth hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars to scientists aren't bound to make literal *billions* if not *trillions* of dollars off predicting eclipses.
I'd love to hear how politicians are making billions of dollars off climate change.

Notice how these cretins always post the most inane conspiracy theories and then never back it up.

There were a bunch of Nazi scientist that said Einstein faked his eclipse findings to support relativity.

East Anglia CRU was caught red handed. And if Cap and Trade were to pass in the US, algore would instantly become one of the richest men in the world.

But you already knew this, do not clue why you asked.

predict the temperature in manila 10 years from now

predict when astrological bodies cross path

false equivalence

at one point it was. Until Einstien came along no one could predict Mercury's orbit. And before copernicus the models for orbits were so complicated it was extremely hard to calculate it

just saying, scientific models improve to make it feasible. Not saying temperature is one of them, that's far more complicated.

>astrological
can't tell if you're trolling or not

>East Anglia CRU was caught red handed.
Wrong. Take your debunked conspiracy nonsense back to /pol/.

factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

>And if Cap and Trade were to pass in the US, algore would instantly become one of the richest men in the world.
Yes clearly Al Gore doesn't actually believe anything he's saying, he's just in it for the money! Brilliant argument. Oh and how exactly would Gore get billions from cap and trade? No really, tell me how.

>predicting that the earth will warm due to observed greenhouse effect

>predicting the temperature in manila in10 years

False equivalency

Except that carbon taxes and the Paris accord don't ensure mitigation. I'm all for trying to control climate. I'm not even a denialist. I just recognize that statistically, we're more likely to be wrong than right.

That's not how statistics work you moron

Was the n-body problem solved?

>Except that carbon taxes and the Paris accord don't ensure mitigation
They are mitigation.

>I'm not even a denialist. I just recognize that statistically, we're more likely to be wrong than right.
You have no idea what you're taking about.

look up the definition of statistics please

This is a false equivalency, orbital mechanics is cut and dry, a layman likely can't determine the date of an eclipse by himself, but he would understand the mechanics behind it with ease, not to mention the mechanics of it are laid bare for us to see day in, day out. It's been directly observable and even understood on a surface level since before recorded history. The orbits of celestial bodies is such pure mathematics that no one is going to question the ease to which it can be done.

But the causes and symptoms of climate change, the efficacy and potential side effects of vaccines and the workings of evolution are not even close to directly observable, especially not to a layman. We have plenty of robust science and statistics and computer simulations and large scale medical testing and whatnot to determine the answers for these things. They're certainly likely to be at least mostly right, but these are all vastly complicated systems and science in no way makes any claim to have them fully understood. It is science after all. This is enough to sow doubt in the eyes of a layman.

I'm not saying it really makes sense for them to claim to have a better understanding of something than a scientist, they're clearly idiots.

>orbital mechanics is cut and dry,
ahem

Yes the n body problem has been solved as a power series for many years.

ahem
>It's been directly observable and even understood on a surface level since before recorded history.

yes, this is exactly the same argument used. Science of the magrins. I'm not saying it's a good argument, but it's been used for as long as recorded history

Because they've predicted eclipses before, and they keep doing it, and they're never wrong. It follows a simple pattern that you can follow by charting the sun and moon. You don't even have to understand heleocentrism to do it. Most climate predictions, on the other hand, have proved highly inaccurate. I'm not aware of any predictions that can really be made in the other fields.

>he said, bringing his inaccurate models to share with the class.

It's really simple : solar eclipse happened in a somewhat short time and the proof is right there, in the sky... no one will go against this. In the other hand, you have global warming in which the effects are not instantly and we never saw a global warming. People are idiots and can't see longer than their nose.

>you have global warming in which the effects are not instantly and we never saw a global warming.
Yup, no global warming here.

Fuck, you people are delusional.

>we never saw a global warming
I don't understand what you mean. I think few people deny that global warming exists.

Your graph shows a strong correlation between co2 and temp since about 1980.

You can't use that to make statistically significant predictions 50 years out let alone 200 or w/e goalpost it's been moved to.

>Your graph shows a strong correlation between co2 and temp since about 1980.
We can draw strong correlations between CO2 and temperature (adjusting for solar variation) going back millions of years.

>You can't use that to make statistically significant predictions 50 years out let alone 200 or w/e goalpost it's been moved to.
Climate science isn't just blind curve-fitting.

>Your graph shows a strong correlation between co2 and temp since about 1980.
Oh wow, you must have done some sophisticated statistical test to determine that huh? Please tell me more.

What the graph shows is global warming, which you idiots claim doesn't exist.

>You can't use that to make statistically significant predictions 50 years out let alone 200 or w/e goalpost it's been moved to.
Then it's a good thing no climatologist makes predictions based simply on correlative data. What a moronic strawman. Are you even valuable of arguing in good faith?

China is the world's factory. They only have such high emissions because they make virtually everything for everyone else. Per capita they're lower than most countries before you even take into account the proportion of their goods that stay in their own borders.

To deny the eclipse is to deny orbital mechanics.

To deny global warming is to deny thermodynamics.

...

...

>being correct in one instance guarantees correctness for all other instances

By increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere, the amount of energy trapped in Earth's atmosphere MUST increase.
To deny this, you must deny:
>the black body radiation formula
>the Solar emission spectrum
>the Earth emission spectrum
>the carbon dioxide absorption spectrum
All of which are as cast iron as you can get in terms of data and modelling certainty. To argue against them is to literally try and argue what colour the sky is.

>To argue against them is to literally try and argue what colour the sky is.
damn...that's a pretty nice summary

>the logic of science
mfw i thought we were talking about inductive logic and it turns out to be a thread asking for bait.

Because eclipse deniers would quickly, and brutally, get their shit fucked up by evidence.
The efficacy of vaccines isn't quite so obvious if you don't have a scientific approach to the world and an understanding of statistics and probabilities, which A LOT of people don't have.

"This one thing happened to me ONE TIME AND NEVER AGAIN, so IT MUST BE the general rule" is a concept that is incredibly radicated in most uneducated people's minds.
Trying to teach them that correlation does not imply causation is probably harder than wrestling a black dragon with a lv. 1 sword and shield and no armor.

Put the two together, and the ONE person out of 35,000,000 who brings their child to get a shot just before realizing he's got the 'tism will never accept that it's unrelated, and will then go warning the others telling them that it's a certain fact that if you get a vaccine you end up autistic.
Throw in some charlatans who make fuckloads of money selling conspiracy books to all the other retards and you've got an explosive mix.

Ever notice how, in TV interviews and such, they always interview the crying mother in her home, near the pictures of her happy child before he got le ebil vaccine, etc? She commands compassion.
Then the conspiracy theorist appears, and comforts her and tells her it's not her fault or whatever, it's the evil system. He's looking out for her, he really cares!
By contrast the doctor is always interviewed in a sterile office, with cold white neon illumination, wearing a suit and tie or a lab coat, looking cold and detached as he speaks of mere statistics. He doesn't look like someone you can trust. Clearly he doesn't give a shit, he must have been paid by big pharma!

That's the power of communication.

I've seen these graphs posted in another thread. Can you tell me if I'm understanding these correctly?

1. 15,10, and 7um radiation mostly transmitted to Earth's surface
2. ~same thing
3. Earth's blackbody emission absorbed in atmosphere at 700,1100 cm^-1 by CO2 and O3
4. CO2 absorption spectrum

I'm least confident about the significance of the first two.
3.

Explain flat earthers then

It's not that easy to prove the earth is round to an uneducated hillbilly either.
A direct observation, which is the only thing that would convince them, would require some pretty expensive specialized equipment.
At the very least you need a telescope and a couple tens of miles of flat land with a tall structure on the other side.

You can't expect someone to go around the world trying to educate every single fucktard who bought into the latest conspiracy.

>It's not that easy to prove the earth is round to an uneducated hillbilly either.
you can see the curvature of the earth with the naked eye! It doesn't take expensive equipment

>affirming the consequent

They chalk it up to optical illusions.
Also seeing it at ground level isn't that easy, not even at sea.
To see it really clearly you need to be on a plane.

Eclipse Prediction: has a definitive ending, is testable

Global Warming: no ending or prediction, does not hold up to the slightest scrutiny

you can VERY clearly see it at sea. But maybe you are right that they would see it as optical illusion. Maybe I have a different perspective cause I live on the prairies and anyone who says they are a flat earther is denying sight. I can look out my window and see the curvature

just look at the flat earth community. half of them didn't even want to view the eclipse because they thought their memory would be wiped.

Climate change, vaccines and evolution are politics-centered issues. Eclipses are not.

How is evolution a politics-centered issue?

>See? God doesn't exist!!!!!!! :DDD
>Yes, evolution is fake!!!!
>No look how I put these bacteria in a petri dish with antibiotics and the only ones surviving are the resistant ones this proves we're all niggers HHAHAHAHA CHRISTKEKS BTFO LMAO also faggotry is normal because it's nature's way against overpopulation HAHAHA brb watching genetically superior Tyrone bang my bull's girlfriend for the good of the human species

>Where are all the denialists?

youtube

youtube.com/watch?v=Q1zDQRSKnYo

Evolution is a liberal/commie/jew plot to lead children away from God.

That's why red states are constantly trying to remove evolution from the curricula.

Evolution doesn't stand up to the Scientific Method.

If it's not observable, if it's not reproducable, it's not science.

>If it's not observable, if it's not reproducable
thousands of years of agriculture beg to differ

>the additives
Did mama only raise you on preservative free turkey breast too you faggot?

>buying supermarket meat
Disgusting!

It is, at least in the US. It has been since Scopes monkey trial.