/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14871827
>Buddy I am going to send you from random guys from 4chan to real scientists who track real weather.
Oof. We're off to a bad start when you don't even know difference between weather and climate. TV meteorologists know nothing about the climate.

>The best resource, and REAL (not faked) discussion on weather and climate (not faked "greens" paid by Big Oil or globalists):
This is the guy that said he would accept the results of Berkeley Earth and then reneged when they came up with results he didn't like:

https://skepticalscience.com/the-best-kind-of-skepticism.html

Oh and he is fine by Big Oil. OOPS.

https://www.desmog.com/2012/02/14/heartland-institute-exposed-internal-documents-unmask-heart-climate-denial-machine/

>MEDIA ADVISORY: 96% OF U.S. CLIMATE DATA IS CORRUPTED
This is just a rehash of claims that were already refuted: https://skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements.htm

>Uncertainty Estimates for Routine Temperature Data Sets
This again showed you don't know the difference between weather and climate. Individual temperature measurements are irrelevant. Your own "scientist" said that Berkeley Earth followed correct statistical procedures and here's what they found, with 95% uncertainty range.

>>14846204
>That's an alarmist graph.
No, it's a graph showing that the denier's claim about the last 50 years is wrong. You're complaining about a denier's chosen time frame as if I chose it.

>it started before 1970 it would show that the past was as warm or warmer than most recent years
Wrong again, denier. What will your excuse be this time? That I controlled your mind to make you say dumb shit?