/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9819554
>You asked me what scientists outside of climatology agree with the models. I gave you a page listing all the major scientific organizations that have endorsed the conclusions resulting from climate theory and models. You did not respond.

You got me confused with some other anon.

>The relevant claims would be that humans are not the primary cause of the change in the climate seen since the industrial revolution, and that the climate models are too wrong to be useful.


https://www.nytimes.com/1981/08/22/us/study-finds-warming-trend-that-could-raise-sea-levels.html

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2017GL073308

The ones predicting sea levels weren't too useful.

Also a climate model that makes predictions that can't be confirmed for decades, at least, wouldn't be so bad if basing our energy policy on those models wouldn't utterly fuck up our economy (and for nothing if they are wrong), especially when the same people railing against Big Oil also rail against nuclear power, though, to be fair, there are at least some people on the global warming side that are serious about reducing CO2 emissions and actually puts forth viable alternatives like nuclear power.

But the worst predictions are those born from political faggotry.

From https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/17/tony-abbott-is-a-climate-change-villain-says-canadian-author-naomi-klein:

"Klein said climate change would exacerbate social problems such as racism and inequality, predicting Australia would become “meaner” as it gets hotter.

“You see that in Australia where the treatment of migrants is a profound moral crisis,” she said. “It’s clear that as sea levels rise that this mean streak and open racism is going to become more extreme – climate change is an accelerant to all those other issues.”"

According to Naomi Klein, CO2 emissions will make people more racist because...reasons.