/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8997470
this niBBa thinks that evolutionary biologists worship chimpanzee-headed humans
holy heck

>>8877965
So now that your claims have been directly refuted, you're going to fall back on appeal to authority?
That's funny, I seem to remember you deniers pissing your pants with rage whenever it's pointed out that a lot of the people claiming climate change isn't real don't have a background in climatology. Nice hypocrisy.

>Cook isn't a scientist
He's got a physics degree and he's done some research. And need I mention that several of his co-authors are actual university professors in scientific fields?

Reminder: by the metrics Legates uses, an abstract containing the following:
>Human activity is causing the earth's surface to warm by increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, with dangerous consequences for the biosphere.
would be classified as opposing the consensus, since it doesn't explicitly state what fraction of the warming is caused by humans. Can you defend this?

This is what dishonest people do when they have no actual arguments. Unable to defend their claims, they fall back on literal argumentum ad hominem.
(Of course, ad hom was how this thread started, so it's not too surprising.)