/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11094113
>https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL067640
>blah blah blah station keeping atmosphere blah blah blah

neither of us are qualified to actually determine whether they were being truthful or not.. im not an expert, are you?

pic related

>Like what?
Firstly, Google's massive bias that's apparent whenever you try to research these things.

Secondly, the "muh 97%" which only asked people if they think climate change is real and not whether they thought it was dangerous. That was obviously misrepresented and wrongly quoted over and over.

Thirdly, the exaggeration about negative economic/social effects. There was a fucking paper blaming the migrant crisis on global warming (of course,) nevermind the war on terror or neoliberal elite's admitted plan of replacing voters, and then articles blaming GW for brexit that followed the first one:
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019-03-15/brexit-was-triggered-by-climate-driven-collapse-in-the-middle-east/

Fourthly, they never fucking mention any other fucking solutions to the "problem" besides giving the socialist crony corporatist military prison industrial complex MORE MONEY AND POWER... The fucking green new deal said people who didn't want to work should get healthcare and an allowance and the greta retardberg affiliated manifesto talked about ending the unsustainable growth of capitalism. This proves beyond reasonable doubt there is a fucking ulterior motive and im actually convinced you are fucking just trolling me because it's plain as fucking day.

>What is causing this lack of correlation?

Within the statistical variance i guess or there is cycles of reverse correlation. Just fucking look at the whole graph. The trend is for both of them to be going up.

>Easterbrook

One fucking guy bro.. im not saying the earth is cooling and never have.. nice fucking STRAWMAN THOUGH. The change in correlation should be answered by you as well!