/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11094304
>we're two niggers wasting our lives on an anime imageboard.. it's not reasonable or appropriate for us to go over their methodology here.
It is if you want to have a scientific debate. Otherwise fuck off.

>what is practical is pointing out hwo fucking suspicious it is and how suspicious it is that you wont admit how suspicious it is!!!!!
It's suspicious because you can't handle the results, that's it. You cite a source, get told it doesn't say what you think it says, and then immediately turn on the source. There is no reasoning behind your position, you will just say anything to get to the conclusion you want. You don't belong here.

>You think that the scientific community is IMMUNE from google's influence?!?!??!?!?
I think you're desperately grasping at straws that don't exist.

>because the 97 percent was for the mildest form of support and wasnt illustrated that way online or on tv.. for example i would belong to the 97 percent because i agree that emissions are having a warming effect but im skeptical in a lot of other ways
No, the 97% is published research and experts in climatology agreeing that humans are the main cause. You're just making shit up.

>because they ignored the fucking giant fucking war
Considering you refuse to read the papers I cite I doubt you have any clue what was taken into account and what was ignored.

>That fucking shows an ULTERIOR MOTIVE.
Speculating about motives is what every conspiracist does since they never have any actual evidence.

>The fact you don't see other solutions
Where did I say there aren't other solutions?

>Now youre just playing dumb motherfucker. Maybe the sun will start getting hotter before then???
So what will happen if the sun reaches a grand minima? If the correlation is so strong it should be very easy to say what would happen from any change in TSI. But every solar-based theory has failed. Meanwhile climatologists are predicting the temperature accurately.

>>10851816
>>empirical evidence are made up-ad hoc computer simulations
Models being correct is only once piece of evidence among many. Why are you lying?

>>simulations are failing since the 80s
Pic related. Why are you lying?

>>simulations doesn't fit with geological records
Here's 3 million years of accurate paleoclimate modeling under the same assumptions as current models:
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/4/eaav7337

Why are you lying?

>>trusting governments
LOL but people should trust a known liar like you?

>>10786792
Which models?

>>10783986
>Not a single one of your climate models have been right
Why are you lying again? You're truly pathetic. You know you that you have no idea what you're talking about, yet you continue to pretend as if you do.

>why should anyone believe something that has been dis-proven every single time its popped up?
HAHAHAHAHA WHAT MASSIVE HYPOCRISY

Here are you and your denier buddies being disproven every time you pop up:

>>10783735
>>10783762
>>10783766
>>10783801
>>10783809
>>10783840
>>10783850
>>10783876
>>10783901
>>10783919

>>10752005
Whoops, forgot to attach my image.