/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12190039
>I dunno, I'm inclined to believe the professionals but they have been constantly wrong in their predictions and models.

>>9259330
>Prove your theory
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf

>How can you defend your point so venomously when throughout decades your theories have proven nill
Actually we have been successfully projecting global temperature for decades while you idiots have consistently failed.
<-----------See here

>>8936801
Uhuh...

>>6727584
>record cold winters
no it hasn't , the reason so many people were screaming "IDS HABBENING!" about the temperature of this past winter is because they're no longer commonplace. IT was the 8th warmest winter globally.

>>6719988
>SRSLY, did you seriously say that although it's naught but popular and the foundations of science, meaning the scientific method, were disregarded utterly we must conform to it?
Can you translate that question to coherent English?

>>6719993
>If the science was strong, this wouldn't occur. To quote Rutherford :
>“If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.”
This is an idiotic argument. Virtually every single scientific consensus has naysayers. "If the science on vaccines was strong we wouldn't have people saying vaccines are dangerous." This is pure confirmation bias.