>>10881808>/sci/ is pathetic because you guys dont have any argument other than pandering to authority, saying most (((climate scientists))) agree.The consensus is a consensus of evidence, not a popularity contest. The argument is in the scientific literature, go debunk it.
>You guys are forgetting that these scientists are completely reliant on government grant to justify their existence, so obviously the more severe the scenario, the more grant they get.So now that Trump is president, they should be changing their tune and going after all that grant money they would get if they proved Trump's denial of AGW. If your conspiracy theory was correct. But it's not. Go ahead and prove it already instead of this baseless speculation. Even flat earthers have done more to prove their argument than you.
>Authority figures have lied in the past Posters on 4chan have lied in the past so I guess your post is invalid and I don't gotta prove shit.
