/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8989429
>we can't trust the evidence
>better only believe claims that aren't supported by any!
this is what deniers unironically believe. assuming that all the evidence proving you wrong must have been systematically faked is literally one step up from saying that the Devil put dinosaur bones in the ground to ruse us.

>>8989470
>>8989990
>complains that people aren't taking claims seriously because of the authors' associations
>dismisses out-of-hand any information from the IPCC
I can't get enough of this delusional brand of argumentum ad hominem

>>8745548
>I'm actually not upset at all, kiddo.
called it. dance, puppet, dance!
>It just seems fishy that a double degree Master of science would ignore basic grammar.
look I know you've probably never been to college or anything, but if you'd seen the kinds of letters professors send out to their students, you'd be disabused of this notion.
>How many grants does that get you?
I hate to break it to you, but arguing with a moron on the internet doesn't get the same level of effort from me as writing a grant proposal or a technical document. you're just not that special to me T_T

>>8745591
it's actually correct to put a period in parentheses if they enclose an entire sentence, rather than just a phrase within a sentence.
(So this is correct.) But this is also correct (even though it looks different).

>>8745594
>gets hilariously anus aggrieved
>I don't get buttfrustrated
keep telling us about how not mad you are and how you can stop responding any time.

>>8102974
one, it's amusing that you keep banging on about how it was written by a guy from the CATO Institute as if that's a good thing. it's pretty well established that the CATO Institute is a mouthpiece for corporate interests. like, say, the tobacco industry.
two, it IS a blog post somewhere. it doesn't cite its sources for numbers or claims except nebulously attributing them to the EPA or the WHO. note also that the tables it displays are CROPPED SCREENSHOTS that exclude the legends and other context for the numbers within. it's a blog post by a guy who thinks he's hot shit.
three, nothing about how the "buried" paper actually directly refutes your claims? yeah, that's what I thought, fag.