Hi sorry to interrupt what’s this about?

Okay. So science is an empirical and falsifiable method that gathers data from observation and makes predictions of what could happen in the future. What climate scientists typically do is, gather the data of amount of carbon being pumped into the atmosphere and then settle on a prediction that at the specified rate, this could cause X, which could lead to Y.

can climate models that stretch out decades be trusted? I also question that

This of courses look at the greenhouse gases from not only human use, but natural use.

I would say no, study’s like Th ya aren’t always entirely accurate

Somethings could change like that

Bang

The whole study is then false

Also, climategate

why were they talking about hiding shit from FOIA requests

So a scientific model is typically made after enormous amounts of data. In this case, it wouldn’t really be a model imo. But I need to brush up on my definition of one. However, climate predictions are more just warnings, saying that if we go at this rate, then this is what will happen.

if everything is on the up and up

Climate scientists have a vested interest in being alarmist

that doesn't prove they're lying obviously

but why were they discussing bypassing FOIA

I don’t know what that is?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/#23d9885927ba

Also, Hal Lewis

Can I see the emails?

They quote some of them in that article I linked

This is what I could find in regards to the email controversy.

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/debunking-misinformation-about-stolen-climate-emails?ref=patrick.net

I think that's from the first climategate

the second one happened in 2011

I mean I get it, of course it could be fabricated

The article says updated 2011

GG @Throttles, you just advanced to level 5!

I haven't studied it enough to be 100% confident

I just think all this stuff is smoke, and where there's smoke there's fire

@qwasi, what's your take on https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf?

I can't give you an answer right now, but I'll look at it

Also, Legates the person who you quoted to have pointed out the misinterpretation in Cook was also caught in controversy.


https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/02/26/uds-david-legates-caught-climate-change-controversy/24090273/

There was also this explaining Legate’s view of Cook’s paper

https://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/04/the-illogic-of-deniers-david-legates-on.html

I'll look at all this stuff later on

<:lol:583236542580129825>

I have to get off in a sec, I don't have time to look at it right now

Ripley's, Believe it or Not

I do other things besides talk about climate change and Vlad licking your balls

Yeah, you suck my cock.

Get on with it, lad.

No, but I will read that link you posted

While you're at it, which you aren't really at all, read this as well: https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf