/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11834705

>>10825724

>>9237263

>let's imagine
>assuming
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X1iwLqM2t0

>>9045502
>>9045503
>>9045509
>>9045599
>>9045704
>>9045729
>>9045816
>>9045821
>>9045826


>tfw you know you are winning when all the brainlets get triggered and gang up on you

>>8976103
>floor(x-1) +1 <= x, which implies floor(x-1)+1 <= floor(x)
what did he mean by this?

>>8910614

>>8624612
>Uh, CO2 is just plant food! It's good for plants! Checkmate cultists! u can't win an argument against this sound logic!
If this is the only argument that you have, you have no argument.

>>8626166
>non-ironically linking to co2science
Sadly, that's not a legitimate source of scientific information. Simply another front group for special interest to spread misinformation about climate change. Perhaps get your information from an actual, legitimate source next time? Perhaps examine some of the literature that was posted earlier in the thread as well? Is using a source that is directly funded by the fossil fuel industry not a massive conflict of interest?d They're also affiliated with Heartland and Science and Environmental Policy Project (notice how these front organizations always try to legitimize themselves with fancy sounding names).

Follow the money:
https://www.desmogblog.com/center-study-carbon-dioxide-and-global-change
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=24
Of course, today companies like Exxon hide their donations by donating instead to organizations like Donor's Trust, or Donors Capital Fund, anti-regulatory organizations that allow their donations to be anonymous with no paper trail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donors_Trust
https://www.desmogblog.com/donors-capital-fund
https://www.desmogblog.com/who-donors-trust

If you want to actually understand the scientific evidence, why not look at the actual, scientific literature, not front groups for special interest? Oh but wait, it's all a conspiracy, so the scientific literature is corrupt or whatever nonsense you tell yourself to keep your confirmation bias active.

>>8371804

>>8339365
>Look around. There's your citation