You calling it fudge isn't evidence of anything except your stunted and puerile vocabulary. You have yet to present a single piece of evidence that there is anything wrong with the data that tens of thousands of degreed research scientists rely on on a daily basis. Your science foundation doesn't come up to a decent high school graduate so why the fuck should ANYONE here care what you think?
you saying it isn't fudge isn't evidence either. see how that works? IPCC is fake, scientists will tell you if you ask the right ones. I posted one earlier in here. You should listen to a scientist explain why it's fake.
name five!
Here are the 234 authors of AR6's "The Physical Science Basis": IPCC Authors (beta)
thanks! Will it tell me what each's contribution was to the report?
Yes. For once in your willfully ignorant existence, open a fucking link and LEARN SOMETHING.
So I looked up this guy from the list, DOUVILLE Hervé Internet doesn't explain what he did. I see that he was with a group of others, CMIP6 Citation 'MRI MRI-ESM2.0 model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP piControl'
Post #128
Do you know what CMIP6 is?
I looked it up, seems like a bunch of nonsense with guys spending money achieving no goal. Let me know what ole Herve did for them.
Well, I should have known. Nothing has changed. Talking with you is an absolute, total, 100%, guaranteed, certified waste of time. We are required to post links supporting factual claims. We are NOT required to explain them, particularly to people who have no interest in the first place. You really are a profoundly ignorant asshole.
I did provide a link, are you fking blind?
The lot of you have no familiarity with basic science. Why, then do you choose to argue science?
ohhhkay Francis!!!!!
That doesn't answer the question. When you complain about scientific studies using modal verbs (must, shall, will, should, would, can, could, may, and might) you are exposing your ignorance. You may have read me here noting that there are no proofs in the natural sciences. Without proofs, scientists are forced to use modal verbs. Surely you've noted that scientific theories are always subject to revision. Do you not see the connection? If a scientist could prove the cause of some event in natural science, they would use have, be and do, the non-modal auxiliary verbs, But then, their findings would not be subject to revision.
Also, du versteht es nicht
