Anonymous at Sat, 11 May 2024 20:38:47 UTC No. 16171285

We must be extremely lucky then
God I hate environment "scientists" more than anyone else. They're pretty much commies in disguise

Anonymous at Sat, 11 May 2024 20:44:49 UTC No. 16171291

>>16171092
OH NOOO SOMEONE WAS WRONG

Anonymous at Sat, 11 May 2024 20:53:43 UTC No. 16171303

Didn't a top climate "scientist" say that we'd all die by 2023 or sum

Anonymous at Sat, 11 May 2024 21:40:08 UTC No. 16171365

>>16171092
Dr. Ehrlich lmao

bodhi at Sat, 11 May 2024 21:42:50 UTC No. 16171374

>>16171285
they dont call them watermelons for nothing (green on the outside, red on the inside)

Anonymous at Sat, 11 May 2024 22:36:09 UTC No. 16171430

>>16171303
they've been screeching those same lies since forever

Anonymous at Sun, 12 May 2024 08:04:30 UTC No. 16171980

>>16171291
They're always wrong

Anonymous at Sun, 12 May 2024 08:18:09 UTC No. 16171989

Okay, let's get this out of the way:
>no "real" scientist ever said that
>if they did, they were probably funded by oil companies to spread FUD
>the New York Times and the Guardian aren't reliable scientific sources (they just report on scientific publications, but let's leave out that part)
>everyone agrees, you're not allowed to disagree
>no, global warming/cooling/climate change cannot be falsified, stop asking

Anonymous at Sun, 12 May 2024 08:19:11 UTC No. 16171990

>>16171989
>>no "real" scientist ever said that
My favourite example of the "no true scotsman"

Anonymous at Sun, 12 May 2024 10:02:40 UTC No. 16172040

>>16171285
Early in the pandemic we were told if we did everything right and got extremely lucky, only 10% of the population would die. It's not only the environmental studies crowd who play the luck game.

Anonymous at Sun, 12 May 2024 12:20:14 UTC No. 16172170

>>16171092
>how come everyone didn't disappear in cloud of blue steam in 1989?
Without the rest of the article, we cannot fairly comment as to what exactly he was referring to or meant by that, but you can pay if you want to read the whole article, curious one:
https://www.nytimes.com/1969/08/10/archives/foe-of-pollution-sees-lack-of-time-asserts-environmental-ills.html

Anonymous at Sun, 12 May 2024 12:21:26 UTC No. 16172171

>>16171430
without that original report, we cannot verify the bullshit claims in your bullshit image.

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 00:17:41 UTC No. 16173065

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 17:41:29 UTC No. 16174191

>>16171092
soience is the modern day religious schizos shilling end of the world lies

Anonymous at Tue, 14 May 2024 05:25:26 UTC No. 16175029

>>16174191
Yep, even more evidence that soientism is an insane religion

Anonymous at Tue, 14 May 2024 05:59:42 UTC No. 16175076

>>16175029
being wrong isn't being insane, it's just being wrong

Anonymous at Tue, 14 May 2024 21:46:49 UTC No. 16176189

>>16175076
if you think the world is coming to an end you are insane

Anonymous at Tue, 14 May 2024 21:49:55 UTC No. 16176199

>>16171092
>how come everyone didn't disappear in cloud of blue steam in 1989?
They did, and then the universe was reborn all at once. Proof: I was born in 1989.

Anonymous at Tue, 14 May 2024 22:00:05 UTC No. 16176215

>>16172040
>Early in the pandemic we were told if we did everything right and got extremely lucky, only 10% of the population would die.
were they wrong? did more than 10% of the population die?

Anonymous at Tue, 14 May 2024 22:01:06 UTC No. 16176216

>>16176189
>coming to an end
What does that mean exactly?

Anonymous at Wed, 15 May 2024 07:09:15 UTC No. 16176770

>>16176216
ask the blue steam

Anonymous at Wed, 15 May 2024 07:16:53 UTC No. 16176775

Because humanity already went extinct in 1975 when the world population reached the unsustainable number of 4 heckin billion.

Anonymous at Wed, 15 May 2024 09:47:08 UTC No. 16176872

>>16171430
This could still become true. Things from Siberia could certainly land in Britain, and bring about some very nasty weather.

Anonymous at Wed, 15 May 2024 10:26:41 UTC No. 16176885

>>16171092
They did. You're obviously too young to remember.

Anonymous at Wed, 15 May 2024 11:29:44 UTC No. 16176928

>>16171092
cue the environmentalists claiming that no papers said this would happen so it doesn't count

Anonymous at Thu, 16 May 2024 01:21:24 UTC No. 16177741

>>16171092
Everyone took the blue steam vax

Anonymous at Thu, 16 May 2024 20:41:56 UTC No. 16178864

>>16177741
redpill me on the blue steam vax

Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 06:45:58 UTC No. 16179459

>>16178864
its vaporware

Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 18:20:29 UTC No. 16180226

>>16176775
>>16173065
why are scientists so terrible at predicting the future?

Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 20:02:09 UTC No. 16180398

>>16176215
>were they wrong
yes

Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 20:05:03 UTC No. 16180400

New astroturf thread?

Anonymous at Sat, 18 May 2024 05:24:30 UTC No. 16181051

>>16180400

Anonymous at Sat, 18 May 2024 21:03:59 UTC No. 16181992

>>16171092
Why would the steam be blue?

Anonymous at Sun, 19 May 2024 17:48:22 UTC No. 16183017

>>16178864
>>16179459
lol

Anonymous at Sun, 19 May 2024 23:56:01 UTC No. 16183551

how low iq do you have to be to fall for doomsday scenario theories? has science ever measured this?

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 20:06:34 UTC No. 16184997

>>16171285

Anonymous at Tue, 21 May 2024 07:54:40 UTC No. 16185771

>>16171980
this, scientists are astonishingly bad at predicting the future, the average tea leaves reader or horoscope expert is unironically much better

Anonymous at Tue, 21 May 2024 23:52:50 UTC No. 16187008

>>16185771
They wouldn't be always wrong if they weren't intentionally shilling harmful lies. If they were just running on random chance they would be correct occasionally