/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9347114
>A scientist would argue against the data, methods, or conclusion in the paper itself. You have done nothing but throw insults and revealed your lack of scientific intelligence.

I did all that here >>9346035. See the meta study https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo3017.pdf that doesn't cherrypick. Maybe if Patrick Michaels doesn't cherrypick the studies in his meta studies about equilibrium climate sensitivity, he could've gotten a nature paper also, instead of presenting a poster next to 19 years old undergrad in a poster hall.

>Once again, you have made it quite apparent you are not a scientist.
How many times do I have to BTFO denier before they learn that real climate scientist do lurk this place to argue with undergrads whether 0.9999 = 1 in their free time