General Science Discussion Thread!

Baby Luigi said:
I dunno, I think naming it "Climate change" is less biased than "global warming".

Besides, haven't we gotten cleaner and greener than ever?
Click to expand...
I think we had a lot more emissions over the years. And it's not just CO2. People need to consider nitrous oxide and other more "obscure" emissions as well.

Also, bringing up Galilieo in a scientific consensus argument is based on a fallacy.
 
Ooo, yes it is.

It's global-warming potential isn't measured, though, because the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is largely dependent on temperature, so you can't really control its amount.
 
Castiel said:
another question, o great sciencey homies


is there any proof angels and demons exist

sincerely yours

Spiny M. Aster
Click to expand...
considering that angels or demons would be celestial beings from an entire other plane of existence, i don't really think that you could find proof of their existence if they didn't want you to find it
Hypochondriac Mario said:
Also, bringing up Galilieo in a scientific consensus argument is based on a fallacy.
Click to expand...
askjdnfalsjkdfasdf

i had an entire article on scientists being shunned that i posted already. did you even read it?
 
Thrawn said:
i had an entire article on scientists being shunned that i posted already. did you even read it?
Click to expand...
I know.

But I have some quotes.

Carl Sagan said:
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Click to expand...

Just because they went against the consensus doesn't mean they're correct. There were numerous attempts to go against the scientific consensus in other aspects and they failed as well.
 
I love political sciences. More specifically, about mass hysteria. Who knows about that case in France with almost all male students afflicted with a mysterious "sickness"??? They tried decontamination, but no microbes could be found...
 
Hypochondriac Mario said:
Just because they went against the consensus doesn't mean they're correct. There were numerous attempts to go against the scientific consensus in other aspects and they failed as well.
Click to expand...
my point wasn't that anti-consensus ideas are always correct, my point was that scientists often scoff at new ideas that could turn out to be correct
 
Yes, they ignore all the little bits, like crumbs dropped under a table. But soon, the crummbs accumulate, and turn into a contradiction. So the have to drop their old ideas, and look at new stuff.
 
Thrawn said:
Hypochondriac Mario said:
Just because they went against the consensus doesn't mean they're correct. There were numerous attempts to go against the scientific consensus in other aspects and they failed as well.
Click to expand...
my point wasn't that anti-consensus ideas are always correct, my point was that scientists often scoff at new ideas that could turn out to be correct
Click to expand...
New ideas go through a peer-review process.

If no published ideas that contradict a consensus stands up to the peer-review process, then there is a problem with the contrarians' beliefs.
 
i'm not sure you understand here. if the peers are part of the consensus, and they feel like the consensus is being challenged, then said contrarian report would never make it past peer-review.

that doesn't necessarily mean it's incorrect.