/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.8421562]

Can scientists be trusted on issues such as global warming, or are they shills made to say a specific answer.

No, this is not a troll post. Many people say many different things.

[Anonymous No.8421571]

>>8421562
Koch brothers have a loooooooooooooooot of money. Second wealthiest company in the world if I remember right. If scientists were bribed then the science would say oil cures cancer.

[Anonymous No.8421573]

>>8421562
There are some issues science can be trusted on and some they cannot. Climate is one they can be counted on. Areas like psychology and social anthropology, no they just p-hack their way to the conclusions they want to arrive at.

[Anonymous No.8421591]

>trusting anyone

[Anonymous No.8421593]

>global warming
>real

[Anonymous No.8421596]

>>8421591
Gravity is real, please don't jump off a building.

[Anonymous No.8421597]

>>8421593
Gravity is a hoax, please jump off a building.
http://www.waykiwayki.com/2015/07/flat-earth-gravity-is-hoax.html

[Anonymous No.8421598]

>>8421596
lol i see what you did there.png

[Anonymous No.8421601]

>>8421597
you're right i tried to jump off and i didn't land. how ironic i figured gravity was real.

[Anonymous No.8421622]

>>8421596
I'm not going to do something because I don't know that there are consequences for it, you fuckin nerd.

[Anonymous No.8422138]

>>8421573
>Areas like psychology and social anthropology, no they just p-hack their way to the conclusions they want to arrive at.
In germany we have a saying: "Don't trust a statistic you didn't fake yourself"

[Anonymous No.8422245]

>>8421562
Last twenty years: 6..7 millikelvin per year (two qc 1 datasets).
Nothing is more convincing than finding out on your own.

[Anonymous No.8422274]

>>8421562
Get a degree in statistics and read the thousands of studies on global warming if you want to decide for yourself.

[Anonymous No.8422328]

two things about "global warming scientists"
1.- over the last 120 years, we have increased 0.8° C. Can they tell me they have an measurement of global temperature in the last 1000 years with an accuracy of degrees per century? I have tried to find it out, but there's no comment on this. Note: see this
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-do-scientists-measure-global-temperature
and check that different institute measure different global temparature, there's more than 10% of difference between some institutes, pic related.
How can we be sure that the geological data measures the same as what we measure today? Maybe some asshole put the thermometer next to a high way! (I 100% trust satellite data)
2.- As
https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
says
>models are tested against the past, against what we know happened. If a model can correctly predict trends from a starting point somewhere in the past, we could expect it to predict with reasonable certainty what might happen in the future.
But different models predict different outcomes for the next 30 years! Each one more catastrophic than the previous one. How reliable are models that know the result they should get?

[Anonymous No.8422348]

>global conspiracy of 97% of scientists is exposed by a plucky band of billionaires and oil companies
It's certainly an interesting narrative

[Anonymous No.8422357]

>>8421571
>If scientists were bribed then the science would say oil cures cancer.
this. scientists are going AGAINST massive economic interests. if they were "shills", they would be shilling for oil (like some actually do)

this is so blatantly obvious it always amazes me how retarded some americans really are about this. THE MONEY IS ON THE SIDE OF THE DENIERS, YOU DENSE FUCKTARDS

[Anonymous No.8422452]

>>8421591
I don't even trust myself tbqh

[Anonymous No.8422651]

I don't see how one could conclude that climate change is shilled

Who would do the shilling? Electric car companies? Solar cell companies?

[Anonymous No.8422702]

>>8421562
>blindly trusting scientists
>ever
>ishiggydiggy

[Anonymous No.8422715]

[Anonymous No.8422741]

>>8422357
>Multibillion dollar

Fucking kek anon. Sudi Aramco sold 5% of its business for 2.5 trillion dollars, that isn't a typo.

>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-01/saudi-arabia-to-sell-stake-in-parent-of-state-oil-giant-by-2018

>Saudi Arabia plans to sell a stake “of less than 5 percent” in the parent of its state-owned oil company....on a conservative valuation of $10 a barrel, the company could be worth more than $2.5 trillion.

[Anonymous No.8422884]

>>8421562
Can big oil be trusted on issues such as global warming, or are they shills made to say a specific answer. No, this is not a troll post. Many people say many different things.

[Anonymous No.8422968]

>>8421562
I think it's safe to assume that there is a world-wide conspiracy going on, in which nearly every scientist is involved. Moreover, anyone denying the existence of this conspiracy is either fooled by the conspiracy, or part of the conspiracy themselves. Either case only strengthens the theory that there is a conspiracy. I conclude that global warming is a hoax, perpetrated by greedy scientists and left-wing politicians who are against oil for some reason I'm unable to figure out.

[Anonymous No.8423077]

>>8422328
land surface record is garbage, have to just ignore their hockey stick curve

[Anonymous No.8423084]

>>8422968
It's a small number of political scientists who's careers & lives depend on pushing a narrative
And then POLITICIANS take their already biased research to make horseshit claims from it

[Anonymous No.8423173]

>>8422968
Conspiracy is a legal term with specific requirements. What we have here is normal systemic corruption: Science is no longer a calling, it's a career, a normal trade and scientists are no special snowflakes, no more honest than Jane or Joe Average. When Mr. Funding prefers 'threats' over 'non-threats' most will deliver and few will leave. It's the natural selection in a competitive environment where getting published is all that counts. It should be understood that political climatology is not about the environment, it is about the mental climate, the control of mass perception.

[Anonymous No.8423178]

>>8421562
Does anyone actually dispute whether global warming is real? I thought this was a matter of man-influenced global warming vs. natural.

Either way I don't see any harm in reducing human impact on it. I can't imagine why people still insist on burning coal or wood in their homes while electric heat pumps are available, with efficiency pushing 400%. I don't see why anyone would want to continue developing overcomplicated and inefficient combustion engines while electric motors are right now infinitely better, just waiting for a slight improvement on battery technology. I don't understand why anyone would choose coal plants instead of solar panels to produce energy.

I honestly don't care if global warming is a hoax or not, I just can't understand people being against innovation just for the sake of it, or because it is slightly cheaper right now (because in stage of infancy), but don't mind sitting in thick coal smoke, or poisoning themselves with diesel fumes. Fuck humans, really.

[Miniature Spacecraft No.8423187]

>>8421562
>Can scientists be trusted on issues such as global warming

Of course not. If you want an advice for your health, go and see a baker.

[Miniature Spacecraft No.8423189]

>>8421593

[Anonymous No.8423197]

>>8421562
Scientists think that manmade CO2 is causing an increase in global temperatures over time.
Scientists also think that the average temperatures increase and has been increasing over time without us as well.

[Anonymous No.8423213]

>>8423178
No one in his right mind advocates waste of energy.
No one speaks against efficiency.
Why base such innovation on a lie?
To sabotage it when the AGW hoax collapses?

[Anonymous No.8423219]

>>8421562
Everything is fine. Companies around the world care for humanity and the environment.

[Anonymous No.8423267]

>>8423178
>with efficiency pushing 400%

What did he mean by this?

[Anonymous No.8423293]

>>8422357
The first one, because they don't pay you off actually. They just make your professional life non-existent. Important people don't talk to you, you don't get opportunities, you don't get money, you won't get hired to state of the art places, etc. You will have zero authority and no one will believe you regardless of what you do.
If you hold a high-ranking scientific position then you work for wall street and you tell people what you're told.

[Anonymous No.8423586]

Many a Climate Changer was forced to relocate under a new identity because a lamppost carried his name.

[Anonymous No.8423601]

>>8421562
No. We should only trust the real free thinkers like Steven Crowder.

[Anonymous No.8423606]

>95% of climate change researchers publish papers supporting it

If the scientists in that field say its happening, I believe them. They don't have anything to gain from supporting it, and will likely have a much more educated opinion of the subject than me.

[Anonymous No.8423638]

>>8423267
Heat energy output is 400% of what is used to power the device. What's unclear to you?

[Anonymous No.8423644]

>man-made global warming
Is there any evidence that without the CO2 emission, there isn't any increase in temperature ?

[Anonymous No.8423655]

>>8423644
>being this retarded

[Anonymous No.8423660]

>>8423655
pathetic

[Anonymous No.8423666]

>>8423638
Wouldn't such a device have to defrost itself for long periods of time during the winter?

[Anonymous No.8423700]

>>8423666
I don't think any part of it is cooler than dewpoint or outside air temp even.

[Anonymous No.8423805]

>>8423644
In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft approved and accepted by a panel of scientists.
1) "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases."
2) "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes."

[Anonymous No.8423840]

>>8423805
Even if that wasn't obviously fucking bullshit

Perhaps they were deleted because they were wrong?

[Anonymous No.8423864]

Follow the data, models are smoke and mirrors
The Modern Warm Period is coming to an end (pic)
Invest in the collapse of the Global Warming Bubble

[Anonymous No.8423902]

>>8423864
Can't you at least make your bait graph legible?

[Anonymous No.8423962]

>>8423293
Can you show me a single high quality paper whose author was shunned by climatologists?

[Anonymous No.8423966]

>>8423644
Low solar activity and the milankovich cycle indicate we should be cooling right now. We are exiting an interglacial yet still warming. This has never occurred in the history of life on earth.

[Anonymous No.8423973]

>>8423864
The fact that we are warming yet solar activity is decreasing only proves AGW correct.

[Anonymous No.8423974]

>>8423606
>They don't have anything to gain from supporting it
>Besides the fact that their careers depend on it?

[Anonymous No.8423995]

>>8423974
Research in climatology would still continue even if there were no AGW going on. Scientists don't get much notice for producing research that agrees with the scientific consensus. Country leaders who would love to hear how AGW is a hoax like George Bush or Stephen Harper didn't produce any scientific articles showing it wasn't real. Stephen Harper even ended up passing a law that muzzled scientists because the data was going against his plan to build the Keystone XL pipeline. I wish AGW wasn't real but no matter how much you bury your head in the sand you can't change reality. The best thing to do is acknowledge it as a problem so we could actually take steps towards reducing it.

[Anonymous No.8424000]

>>8421562
>>8422328
>>8422715
>>8422968
>>8423084
>>8423189
>>8423293
>>8423644
>>8423864

Please read this very long but very interesting and very informative article (which I know you won't since you'd rather remain ignorant than try to understand anything):
http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/06/how-tesla-will-change-your-life.html

For example, electric cars, here's the industries they will destroy: oil (extraction, refining, transportation, energy), cars (sales, production), car parts (repair/sales/production), gas stations.

Yeah, all those billion dollar industries, those scientists sure know where the money is by going against them.

[Anonymous No.8424056]

>>8421598
Fuck off reddit.

[Anonymous No.8424267]

>>8423700
It has to be tho

According to wiki these things are excellent at cooling or slightly warming a living space, but shit at heating during freezing temperatures

[Anonymous No.8424275]

>>8423973
Warming rate was highest at the end of the Little Ice Age, without man-made CO2 emissions. Current rate is close to zero (6 millikelvin/year) and we are not yet at the minimum of cycle 24. Cooling of the northern hemisphere (Eurasia first, then North America) will begin in one to two years. I'm only using reliable satellite data, not the forged propaganda fantasies. The image shows what all models still ignore: When the tipping point is reached a positive feedback kicks in and the ice sheets will advance.

"Basic problem is that all models are wrong - not got enough middle and low level clouds." -- Phil Jones <[e-mail]>, straight from the horse's mouth.

[Anonymous No.8424282]

>>8424000
>cars will destroy the car industry

[Anonymous No.8424319]

>>8423995
>Harper didn't produce any scientific articles
This is such an absurd hubris. You do not need to be a master chef to notice that the food stinks.

[Anonymous No.8424338]

>>8423666
Yes, but down to about -10C the output is still >100%

[Anonymous No.8424447]

>>8423864
Anecdotal evidence from the Rocky Mountains says the pine beetles froze to death the last couple years.

[Anonymous No.8424595]

>>8421562
>>8421571
>>8421573
>>8421591
>>8421593
>>8421596
>>8421597
>>8421598
>>8421601
>>8421622
>>8422138
>>8422245
>>8422274
>>8422328
>>8422348
>>8422357
>>8422452
>>8422651
>>8422702
>>8422715
>>8422741
>>8422884
>>8422968
>>8423077
>>8423084
>>8423173
>>8423178
>>8423187
>>8423189
>>8423197
>>8423213
>>8423219
>>8423267
>>8423293
>>8423586
>>8423601
>>8423606
>>8423638
>>8423644
>>8423655
>>8423660
>>8423666
>>8423700
>>8423805
>>8423840
>>8423864
>>8423902
>>8423962
>>8423966
>>8423973
>>8423974
>>8423995
>>8424000
>>8424056
>>8424267
>>8424275
>>8424282
>>8424319
>>8424338
>>8424447
there is literally nothing wrong with global warming or carbon dioxide

[Anonymous No.8424715]

>>8421562
>Can scientists be trusted
No, let's trust corporate-controlled media instead.

[Anonymous No.8424724]

>>8424595
You're a dumbfag who wouldn't know warming if someone put your dick in a toaster.

[Anonymous No.8424738]

>>8421562
Trust no one, not even yourself

Not even this post

[Anonymous No.8424744]

>>8424595

[Anonymous No.8424754]

>>8424744
>>8424724

[Anonymous No.8424756]

>>8424754
http://www.skepticalscience.com/

[Anonymous No.8424760]

>>8424754
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/

[Anonymous No.8424765]

>>8424756
>>8424760

>>8424754

[Anonymous No.8424768]

>>8424754
>Al Gore in picture
Post discarded immediately.

[Anonymous No.8424774]

>>8423966
>what is the city heat island effect

[Anonymous No.8424829]

Global warming is a scam invented to justify more government regulation and more taxation while funneling money to "green" energy that is really just a collection of wealth liberals who want to pocket taxpayer dollars. There is no real science behind it.

[Anonymous No.8424987]

>>8424595
>nothing wrong with global warming or carbon dioxide
Indeed. Last winter, I'm leaving the cold North.

[Anonymous No.8424998]

>>8421571
>If scientists were bribed then the science would say oil cures cancer.
This is inane. Muddying the collective public perception and dialogue needs to balance and finely skew reality. If you try such an idiotic ruse then the jig is up, fast. You need to keep a complex and cluttered framework going, full of a lot disingenuous and heavily spun "facts" spurring a lot of little tribal groups to form and be made to split off and fight each other over it. Not realizing who's controlling their dynamics by drip feeding information and modulating the medium for conversation. Else they begin to work together and don;t have any group or individual resistance to the truth, then they turn against the softest targets and it quickly gets of control. If someone is very intelligent among them and uses the same general tactics, you'll be pulled in with the rest of your network of buds and likely end up disappearing or in front of a firing squad. Violent confusion loves a good spectacle. Public execution is the greatest of time honored spectacles, when a power structure is beginning to finish shifting.

Your understanding of how people work, and how they're manipulated, is infantile. That sounds like an insult, but it's not. I'm genuinely urging you to reconsider your beliefs and keep thinking. Look into crowd psychology and its history, for starters.

[Anonymous No.8425012]

>>8424829
>people actually believe this

And I thought /sci/ actually had some intelligent people on here. guess its time to take out the tinfoil hats.

[Anonymous No.8425013]

>>8424829
What about UN Agenda 21?

[Anonymous No.8425066]

Doomsday prophecies belong on >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.8425078]

>>8424774
https://youtu.be/pidRKmq2iGI?t=20s

[Anonymous No.8425082]

>>8424774
http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm

[Anonymous No.8425085]

Will climate change make my erections harder on average?

[Anonymous No.8425239]

>>8425085
>wzlt
nope, it's dead weight now

[Anonymous No.8425242]

>>8425239
Oh no. :(

[Anonymous No.8425308]

>>8424754
>Shitty graphs from denier blogs.
>cherry-picked pre-adjustment satellite data
>US-only weather records
>Facebook-tier "gotcha" claims.
>Al Gore quotes.
Good work. You've disproven an entire discipline of scientific research, and you did it with a single badly-organised PNG.

[Anonymous No.8425488]

>>8421562
You probably can't but I'm not sure, but it's a sure thing with smoking. Regarding smoking, very powerful elite groups such as the FDA and the American Cancer Society infiltrated pro smoking venues such as the tobacco industry and smokers rights groups and intentionally made them look like shit. They also throw out and cherry pick studies. They control both sides.

Wouldn't surprise me if this happened with global warming as well, but I don't know enough about global warming to conclude whether or not scientist is who say it's an issue are really shills. It happens with smoking though all the time.

[Anonymous No.8425651]

>>8424754
What is this fucking carbon tax meme that always gets invoked as the 'real reason' for the 'climate conspiracy'?

No nation has an actual 'carbon tax', and even if they did why would a fucking ordinary person have to pay it and not the staggeringly wealthy multinational corporations directly responsible for the carbon in the first place?

[Anonymous No.8425655]

>>8425488
Please die of cancer

Oh wait, you're already giving it your best shot

Carry on then

[Anonymous No.8425656]

We should approach this like Reagan did to Ozone layer.

A lot of people didn't believe it was CFCs eating the ozone layer. Yet just to be sure, in case they are wrong, we should go ahead and do something about it.


problem with doing this for CO2 and global warming. is that the global warming people want to do the most expensive and economy changing things possible. Instead of sane solutions like nuclear power and geo engineering.

[Anonymous No.8425662]

>>8421562
>Can scientists be trusted

No.

[Anonymous No.8425664]

>>8424998
Alright, shill.

[Anonymous No.8425668]

>>8424765

>>8424760
>>8424756

[Anonymous No.8425728]

>>8422357
Doesn't your picture condradict what you are saying?

[Anonymous No.8426008]

>>8425655
Nice, taking personal threats from the anti-smoking, pro-establishment playbook. I'm impressed. Too bad you refuted nothing. It's the same thing that >>8424998 is saying. The FDA and the American Cancer Society control both sides and ensure their own opposition looks stupid. If you want proof, look up the board of directors for Philip Morris from 1961 to 1980, and then look up the female founder of the American Cancer society.

[Anonymous No.8426015]

>>8426008
>American Cancer Society

Alright, she wasn't a founder but she did oust the board of directors and basically take complete control over it.

[Anonymous No.8426023]

>>8425655
Nice, taking personal threats from the anti-smoking, pro-establishment playbook. I'm impressed. Too bad you refuted nothing. It's the same thing that >>8424998 is saying. The Lasker Foundation, FDA and the American Cancer Society control both sides and ensure their own opposition looks stupid. If you want proof, look up the board of directors for Philip Morris from 1961 to 1980, and then look up the female head of the Lasker Foundation.

[Anonymous No.8426088]

>>8426023
You have been culturally enriched by injuns. :^)

[Anonymous No.8426221]

>>8425488
>>8426023

PAID SHILL

Associate something ridiculous like "Smoking isn't linked to cancer" with something highly defensible,
"Climate Skepticism."

PS Can you get me a graph of the FDA "correcting" their own cancer rate data? Over and over?
PPS How much money are you getting from the Soros club?

[Anonymous No.8426303]

>>8424744
#shill4hill amiright????? xDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

[Anonymous No.8426341]

>>8426221
>Can you get me a graph of the FDA "correcting" their own cancer rate data? Over and over?

No, but I can greentext some solid proof that the same people from the FDA have their hands in both anti- and pro- smoking movements to steer discussion away from some of the real problems. I also can show that the surgeon general conveniently left out studies in the double digits that linked cancer to hpv, not smoking.

>PAID SHILL

I wish I was being fucking paid. I hate spoon feeding people the truth for free, but I'm willing to if it changes people's minds.

[Anonymous No.8426366]

>>8425656
The ozone hole fraud was used to prepare the sheeple for the global warming meme, that global environmental problems can be solved through governance basically. There is a story behind CFC's and the patent on them expiring which would have flooded the third world with cheap a refrigerant. The same "scientist" who discover the hole went on to discover global warming, worked for GE I believe and was as shill by every definition of the word. There are good priests, bad priests, good scientists, bad scientists.

"They" want to control carbon because to control carbon, you control life. Reagan was a puppet head and controlled by many shadowy men behind the curtains. The man was an actor and why he was installed in the first place, to pretend he was president.

[Anonymous No.8426377]

>>8426341
>>PAID SHILL
>I wish I was being fucking paid. I hate spoon feeding people the truth for free, but I'm willing to if it changes people's minds.

Then you'd be creating and posting in pro-tobacco threads, not Climate Change threads. Its not like you post elsewhere.

REPEAT. How much does Uncle Soros pay you?

[Anonymous No.8426486]

>>8425656
The fact that they won't support nuclear power is the final proof that it's a scam. If it were real, they would be willing to support sensible options to address it. Instead, we get the same old collectivist nonsense, trying to use a fake problem as an excuse for more centralized control of the economy.

[Anonymous No.8426503]

>>8426341
>PAID SHILL
so a shill

[Anonymous No.8426510]

>>8425664
Suck the D, bud. For all you know you're already my useful idiot, and my slave.

Here, have some cuteness. I, personally, am experiencing cuteness overload. And this is all I'm going to talk about.

[Anonymous No.8426519]

>>8426503
>using a quote from someone I greentexted as proof

>>8426377
pro-tobacco threads generally attract the same kind of people who use similar tactics being used in is very thread to shut down any discussion placing smoking in a non-dangerous light, so there'd be no point.

[Anonymous No.8426745]

The funny thing is that big energy corporations don't even deny global warming. They invest heavily in renewable energy so they can get in on the ground floor when that business becomes more profitable than non-renewables.

[Anonymous No.8426770]

>>8426221
>Can you get me a graph of the FDA "correcting" their own cancer rate data? Over and over?
he doesn't know about changes in diagnosis rates! for example, breast cancer incidence has been rising like crazy, but it's mostly just that we're getting better at diagnosing it.
adjusting for changes in diagnostic practices is no different from adjusting for measurement error. educate yourself, fool.

>How much money are you getting from the Soros club?
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.8426840]

>>8426770
> muh /pol/ boogieman
Thank you for Correcting the Record, $0.10 has been deposited in your account.

[Anonymous No.8426862]

>>8424595
>nothing wrong with global warming
>it will put humanity back into the
>Stone Age, where it belongs
out-Ludding the Luddites

[Anonymous No.8426865]

>>8424829
>alla them wealth liberals
riiight

[Anonymous No.8426869]

>>8425012
>tinfoil
foil is aluminum now, Grandpa

[Anonymous No.8426874]

>>8426770
>getting better at diagnosing it

It's also because hpv actually causes cancer, not smoking. Other viruses are also linked to respiratory problems and heart problems, not smoking.

[Anonymous No.8426876]

>>8425488
>made them look like shit
>implying they were not shit

[Anonymous No.8426878]

>>8426221
>money are you getting from the Soros club
he does it for free

[Anonymous No.8426883]

>>8426745
>big energy corporations don't even deny global wa
not any more, but they did at first, underage b&

[Anonymous No.8426899]

>>8426745
>The funny thing is that big energy corporations don't even deny global warming.
They don't deny it directly, but they almost definitely still fund denier groups under the table.

[Anonymous No.8426946]

>>8426899

see image in >>8422884

[Anonymous No.8427229]

Climate change is an excuse for a carbon tax grab by industrialized nations.

[Anonymous No.8427262]

>>8427229
>concerned that Exxon/Mobil will pay more tax
oh you poor babby

[Anonymous No.8427364]

>>8427262
> implying Exxon will pay
Ha. No. Corporations have never had to pay, they have enough lawyers and lobbyists to make sure that this won't touch them. The people who will have to pay are the middle class, actual workers. Of course, shitlibs don't care because they don't know anyone who actually works, and they're too stupid to see that the real reason the government wants this is to keep people hooked on benefits on their plantation. Cheap energy lets people better themselves, and leftists can't stand that. It reminds them of how worthless they are, so they would rather drag everyone down rather than admit that they are the only reason why they're such failures.

[Anonymous No.8427373]

>>8427364
>everybody that believes in climate change is unemployed
>especially the scientists that work on it

You are so fucking deluded that its making my head hurt. Have you ever been outside?

[Anonymous No.8427404]

>>8427364
This is perhaps the most retarded post I have ever seen on /sci/. Congratulations.

[Anonymous No.8427416]

>>8422328
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YNfA7mDri4

[Anonymous No.8427427]

>>8427364
>the middle class worker will have to pay in a cap and trade carbon tax system exclusive to companies

Really activates my neurons

[Anonymous No.8427490]

>>8427373
The scientists "working" on global warming know that no global warming = no paycheck for them.

[Anonymous No.8427504]

>>8427427
> implying they won't simply pass the costs on to the consumer
Of course, you would know that if you ever went out into the working world. But that's the problem with academics, they have no fucking clue what is going on outside their bubble that all of the "solutions" they come up with are worse than the alleged problem.

[Anonymous No.8427507]

>>8427490
As a scientist there is far, far more money to be made lobbying against climate change than there is in publishing papers supporting it. The mental gymnastics you're performing are incredible.

[Anonymous No.8427511]

>>8427507
They aren't scientists. They became lobbyists the moment they tried to force their own public policy agenda on the rest of us.

[Anonymous No.8427527]

>>8427511
>People following the scientific method and publishing scientific papers in peer reviewed journalists aren't scientists

k. Just lucky we have educated people like you to set us all straight.

[Anonymous No.8427536]

>>8426876
Again, already been through this:

Head of Lasker foundation who funded the American Cancer Society has a family member on the board of directors of Philip Morris since 1961. They intentionally infiltrated tobacco companies and had them act this way. Isn't that hard to figure out. It's a very slimy yet typical political tactic. Every other tobacco company at least in the U.S. was also compromised in some way.Documents showing tobacco executives acting like bullies wasn't just some stroke of luck discovered by anti-smokers, this was planned from the start.

[Anonymous No.8427542]

>>8427527
This isn't really a comment on global warming, but when the same "scientists" show up over and over again in smoking related studies, you realize it's not about objectivity but about hand picked scientists with an agenda trying to influence public policy.