/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15674061
Because the purposely hid their scientist’s research and lobbied to publicize climate denialism. Those studies even made decently accurate predictions with simple models

>>15274005
>>15273996
Imagine if you actually didn’t stood out so much as being an oil industry shill who’s been posting nonstop denier thread ls for months using the same retarded claims.
They’ve been caught time and time again funding misinformation that ensures that they get to keep their profits

>>12765096
one of the original leaked graphs

>>12113296
>ah yes the scientists making $80k a year if that are equal to a trillion dollar industry that has been caught hiding the fact that their business is directly related to climate change

It's not like Exxon knew about and modeled anthropogenic warming then buried it and funded disinfo right?

>>11709061
They've known about it since the 80's and even made a pretty decent model projections of CO2 and temperature changes.
>>11709033
>This planet used to have no ice caps or glaciers at all, you know that right?
That was 65+My ago and the planet had a completely different oceanic and continental configuration, so it's irrelevant to our current situation. Plus the ecosystem back then developed under those conditions. Our current ecosystem is one of a cooler world, as it has been cooling progressively for millions of years.

>>11178875
That's quite a different opinion than is expressed here. >>11178782
To answer your second statement, we can measure the decrease in outgoing long wave radiation which match up exactly with the absorption spectrum of CO2, we have predictions from Exxon Mobil in the 80s which predict current global average temperature increases incredibly accurately. At this point your only argument seems to be climatology isn't easy enough so it must be a global conspiracy.

Accusing others of what you're doing yourself. Classic shill tactic

>>11149834
Just use the data from your Exxon overlords

>>11141213
Well whatever those fine gentlemen at Exxonmobil were doing back in 1982 was definitely working.

>>11126921
"No!"