/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9842833
>I am still waiting for evidence that it's corrupted.
By making the 1930s much cooler than it actually was, making warming in recent decades look comparatively sharp. "It was just missing data" isn't an argument because they would have already had all the data for the 1930s, so it was deliberate. Plus, how can you trust temperature data from the early 1900s and before? It would have been extremely sparse without satellites.
>OK great, but they can always be improved. I'm glad you admitted you were wrong.
No, it doesn't need improving, it's already extremely accurate, please make sure the "scientists" leave it alone now.
>Is the atmosphere not a physical substance?
It is one where you cannot control all the variables. You can't recreate earth's atmosphere in a lab. Instead you resort to computer models which is not science.
>We already have that Earth, it's called the past.
>So evolution isn't science either right?
Science doesn't work in the past, it works in the present moment, which can then be used to explain past events. For example, if I see a melted candle, then I can conclude confidently that it had heat applied to it, because I can apply heat to candles in the present moment and observe the effects, repeatedly.

Climate "science" however will conclude that rising temperatures faster than has been recorded before will end in catastrophe, yet this cannot be reproduced scientifically.

And no, evolution isn't science either. Pic related.
>Vanguard told Exxon to spread doubt about global warming? Where is the proof of this?
Vanguard has published it because they want everyone to know.