>>12966671Holy shit, are you this daft?
> So you've done nothing to prove your claim that climate science has been consistently wrong.That was a different anon. You asked for a source
>>12966601, I provided you with a source.
>>12966608I at no point claimed that climate science was consistently wrong. However, it is has the credibility of the health sciences, because it's constantly shilled by oil companies.
Given how corrupt politicians are, it is in their best interest to write environmental policies that favour their investments. Would you disagree with this? I would assume you wouldn't.
With that said, and as noted by the documentary I presented, with predictions 'backed by science' being completely wrong... I would like to predict that further research has shown to be foolhardy and incorrect in their predictions, and seem to be outside the realm of reality. It is either that, or their predictions coincidentally were skewed and thrown off by some other world shattering event. Or rather... maybe they haven't been able to develop good enough predictive models? That would be absurd!?
