/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12764717
What's your IQ? What's your skin tone? I didn't modify the data at all. I merely qualify what's data and what's a projection.
>proven track record
Like what? Literally all their predictions are failing. An Inconvenient Truth? A polar bear about to drown? Yeah the only Inconvenient Truth there is that nothing happened.
>strong basis in physical science
Kek, the models are so convoluted because they don't have any basis. Find me a single article with a simple model. All of it is big data driven, based on no fundamental model.

>>12757245
Based.

The reality of the situation is that literally every projection claimed by climatologists uses shaky models that predict, without any evidence, exponential growth in all categories as worst case scenarios, and use this to scare political leaders into effecting climate policies. It's bullshit, and I'm sick of seeing people take it seriously and not tear it down as the doomsaying bullshit that it is. You can do this data/not data partition with literally every climate change plot (note: climate change, not global warming, since that's the only legitimate finding in climate change science). In every plot you do this on, the data is incredibly stable whereas the projections are outlandishly ridiculous. In most of the plots, projections constitute over 70% of the graph. Come on, guys.

>>12697520
Is climate change a meme?