/sci/ - Science & Math

nice troll, not biting, enjoy your sage

Paleofag here.
OP, if you want a serious discussion, can you explain what aspects of evolution you find implausible? I'm trying to figure out what you're getting stuck on...

>>8170475
>uses word "evolutionist"
>trashes fossil evidence
>I totally believe in evolution, guise!
you've been detected, pic related

>>8110670
>You mean that predictions of low sensitivity
2quoque4me
why are papers that made inaccurate predictions astounding proof of fraud if they predicted warming, and perfectly A-OK and valid if they predicted cooling? no ideological bias THERE, surely.

>If the journal publishes skeptical papers, its phony-baloney.
No, the aforementioned journal is literally just a website set up by some dude in China to "publish" literally any manuscript you submit in exchange for a hefty publishing fee. It's pretty well-documented in this case.
>http://www.scientificspam.net/?p=71
>https://scholarlyoa.com/2012/09/26/a-publisher-with-no-website-science-and-engineering-publishing-company/
Given that prominent deniers like Sherwood B. Idso have gotten published in Science, the presence of denier-written articles in a journal in and of itself is not evidence of the journal's lack of quality. Nice try though.

>One low-end prediction. Not up to 5.0 degrees, does NOT agree with IPCC.
Are you familiar how confidence intervals work? The confidence intervals of the two predictions overlap, meaning that they ARE consistent with each other. By your logic, a window of 1.4-1.7 would not agree with a window of 1.5-1.8 because they aren't exactly the same.
You're REALLY reaching here to disguise the fact that even your own sources reject your claims.

>Who cares, confidence intervals are almost always huge. They have to cover 90 or 95% etc.
Literally just making shit up here.

>>8110740
>I can't help but feel that these two movements have a lot of the same people.
Ironic, given that a lot of the guys currently pitching climate denial in government (e.g. Joe Barton) were the same ones promoting the lie that cigarettes don't cause cancer twenty years ago.