/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8618875
>All we have is guesswork and fantasies
it's easy to say this if you actively ignore all the evidence we have.
>The models cannot be relied on to provide anything
they've been fairly accurate. if you want to reject them anyway, that's a symptom of your own closed-minded predetermined opinions.
>And no, the temperature hasn't risen 2 degrees in 100 years, thats nonsense.
the weather stations beg to differ. see, in the scientific community, we trust measurements over what some dude on the internet thinks.

>You people want to literally destroy all industrial economies and turn us back to an agrarian society
no, we want to power our current level of technological advancement in more responsible ways that don't create massive negative externalities.
>as if this will magically prevent the climate from ever changing again
we're not trying to stop climate from ever changing. we're trying to stop the current changes that human activity has set in motion.

>Even in your own article they admit that they know nothing, and can predict nothing
literally a lie. recognizing the limitations of a method or model doesn't mean throwing out what information it does provide.

your tired insistence that YOU CANT KNOW NUFFIN is sounding a little ragged at this point.

does this fit with the rest?