>>11805178>It's simply some retarded deniersfine. you are the 97% right? 'deniers' (of anything, apparently) are negligible. then just why all the denial on your side? all the vitriol and blatant bad faith?
there's no big conspiracy here. it's just bad, very bad science made, unsurprisingly, by very bad scientists. you do not become 'climate scientist' gladly. at least not a decade or more ago. that's what you become when you are not very good at maths and most physical fields. I've worked in one of the biggest usa institutions for atm and climate research and I know what I'm talking about.
so everything started as a very bad compilation of low quality research. but then it got traction. 'societal implications'. which is important for grabbing money in modern science. and then, obviously, public recognition. everybody loves to be a savior apparently nowadays (just switch on your smartphone). the hero on the news. we-were-saving-the-fuckin-planet. awsome.
the money. the career. the pussy. all mixed. what a cocktail. what a ride.
from that moment on, the level of conflict of interests was so massive that making the simplest honest calculation was just impossible. just running some of the numerical models costs half a million dollars for a few days. it's just a impossible to state anything outside the strictly defined discourse without pissing so many people and their interests that you just simply cant.
96% consensus they say. they are unable to even understand the levels of idiocy and irony involved in that statement alone. but just saying this makes you a 'denier'. of what? nobody knows. nobody cares apparently.
fine. you won. take all the money, which is all that really matters in the end. but this thread started with some anons like
>>11802101 making a few questions and comments, and some answers debatable or not, more or less technical, have been provided. everything else is just smoke.
and the methodology underlying that hockey fucking plot is a joke
