/sci/ was wrong... AGAIN.
>>16553397Global warming/climate change hysteria was btfo 15 years ago when it was conclusively proven that over ocean readings were being "calibrated" in the satellites when they didn't need it over land targets.
>>16553397>Atmosphere saturated with carbon dioxideThat's retarded though. If that was true then either dry ice or liquid CO2 would have to be stable at atmospheric conditions. If more was pushed into air, then it would rain down like water/snow, hard to say which, as you'd have to throw currently known properties of CO2 out of the window anyway
wat
>>16553397ITT: OP attempts to redefine /sci/ as anti-/sci/ shills.
>>16554070Well said, Anon. You the Real Real MVP.
>>16553397>>16554070>>16554085LMAO
>>16554070you aren't capable of comprehending whats being said in the article OP pic refers to because you don't have the relevant scientific education and background knowledge in the topic being discussed, it is only via dunning-krugerism that you presume you understand the topic being discussed.
>>16554355>You can't understand the invalid, incorrect conclusions of a retracted paper!>But I, SchizoMan, am able to comprwhend due to the largeness of my brain's mind.>As measured by my perfect 100 IQ.
>>16553397so more carbon emissions... will raise earth's temperature? I'm struggling to understand what exactly sci was wrong about here.
>>16554080>Science is whatever I agree with.
>>16554509Correction: They think science is whatever the blue people agree with.
>>16554490>more carbon emissions won't make any differenceYou have attention deficiency.
>>16554490The paper was retracted because it proved the prevailing theory wrong.
>>16554580>The paper was retracted because it proved the prevailing theory wrong.More likely than not.
>>16554076you are dealing with retarded /pol/tards...
>>16554509>i agree with the retracted paper>ergo, it is science
