/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11094543
>Papers which stated humans are a minimal cause of global warming were categorized as rejecting the consensus.
see >>11094685

also ill admit that i dont actually know for sure but neither do you and that study was done in the 90s.. there are lots people who are critical of that study and there have been counter studies but even if it was correct there are still plenty of other examples of how alarmists have lied.. both in the science community and elsewhere

>Skepticism follows the evidence, denial ignores it.
you just made that up.. and when there is money and politics involved YOU SHOULD *************ALWAYS************** be hella fucking suspicious. If you are reading something about Global Homo Warming there is like a fucking 99 percent chances there is some bias or ulterior motive at play. If you are not suspicious like that then you are either a libtard communist or underage b@n

>No one like you would get published, I can assure you.
DAMN SNARKY HOT TAKE OUUWWWWWWWWW

>You openly admit you have none
WHY WOULD TWO PEOPLE ARGUE ABOUT SATELLITE CALIBRATION DUDE!`?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!? IF IT WAS ABOUT HOW TO CALIBRATE YOUR MOM'S DILDO THEN MAYBE YOU COULD MAKE A CASE BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. IT'S JUST "HURR DURR THEY SAID SO YOU SHOULD GO TO /POL/ IF YOU DOUBT THEM REeeeeeE"

> there is no argument.
HEY FUCKFACE IVE SAID IT FUCKING 18 TIMES NOW!!!!!! THE ARGUMENT IS THAT IF YOU ARE NOT FUCKING SUSPICIOUS OF THEM ALL OF A SUDDEN INCREASING THEIR NUMBERS RIGHT AFTER THE WHOLE FUCKING CLIMATE CHANGE PAUSE THING THEN YOU ARE FUCKING NAIVE BRO.... IT*S JUST A FUCKING FACT... YOU ARE FUCKING NAIVE AND GULLIBLE DUDE!!!?!??! WE DONT HAVE TO RESEARCH YOUR MOMS DILDO BECAUSE THAT IS ENOUGH OF AN ARGUMENT.. YOURE NOT A RATIONAL ACTOR IN THIS SITUATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!1