/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8622307
Meant to say "Eight individual investigations."

Also, worth watching about "climategate."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OB2prBtVFo&index=24&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

>>8622308
>Too bad you're repeating the same thing for over +25 years with completely failed predictions every single time :(
Have any evidence to back up this statement, or is it simply more conjecture and hearsay from things you read on a blog?
In fact, more often than not, entities like the IPCC underestimate climate projections:

For example, here is a paper that discusses how projections on SLR have been underestimated:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044035;jsessionid=9A975B329EA97F22214EE2B1EE64C30F.c2.iopscience.cld.iop.org
http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/Copenhagen/Copenhagen_Diagnosis_HIGH.pdf

Or you could read about how sea ice decline has been underestimated from the projections:
http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/Copenhagen_Diagnosis_LOW.pdf


>>8622314
>>8622311
You people are beyond parody. I didn't make this thread by the way, I've just been posting in it. It's far too obvious that you've spent a little too much time on your echo chamber, to the point at which you can no longer think rationally anymore, only emotionally. How ironic that people like yourselves can only attribute evidence to their feelings, rather than empirical evidence, or deductive reasoning.