I asked you what the motivation would be to fabricate evidence of global warming & you said it was a whole can of worms involving many people. Sounds like a conspiracy to me.
Anyways, I seriously don't care what you think.
If you want to believe my dad's a fake scientist, that's cool. Maybe he works for fake Al Gore with his fabricated excel charts made of science-tistics & his weather machine that controls the gravitational pull of the moon.
The 'charts' only go back to 1880 so there's not much to go off of anyway. And why do you have to try to label me some tinfoil hat person? Gravitational pull of the moon? Really?
I dont understand why you get so offended by my views on it when you have absolutely no knowledge at all about the subject. If you're so certain about the subject, certain enough to suggest I'm a tinfoil hat guy, you should have no problem citing evidence yourself. Why can't you do that?
"Why do you have to try to label me some tinfoil hat person?"
Well, "humans are the primary cause of climate change" has indisputably been the scientific consensus for decades. You don't really seem like a tinfoil hat person, though. Based on the YouTube link you just sent me, I'm guessing maybe just a little too ready to believe unreliable sources.
I'm busy tonight, but I'll type up something for you later, since is kind of important. In the meantime, can you promise to keep an open mind?
Yes, but the predictions never came true. Florida was supposed to be under water by 2012. A new prediction says we have 10 more years before the apocalypse. There's hundreds of climate scientists that make good arguments as to why global warming may not be man made. Man doesnt have the records yet to make that call. They only go back to 1880. We know for a fact that the climate has been changing for thousands of years before that. Will you keep an open mind too? I can give you hundreds of very well qualified climatologists that give you an argument as to why climate scientists got it wrong. Ive listened to both arguments and to me the first ones make more sense. Its not a silly argument when you really look at the evidence with an open mind.
Science is always changing. In the 1990 doctors operated on babies while theyy were awake believing they felt no pain. Until 5 years ago cardiologists believed all fats caused heart disease. Now they're saying fats like olive oil reduce your risk. Science is always changing. Its dangerous to assume you ALWAYS have it right. You should never have a bias scientifically.
Oy, I'm back. I agree with you that science is always changing - that's why it's science, it has to adapt to new evidence. I will keep an open mind.
Let me just address what you posted first.
"Yes, but the predictions never came true. Florida was supposed to be under water by 2012. A new prediction says we have 10 more years before the apocalypse."
...what? What prediction are you talking about? I have heard literally zero reputable sources say anything near the lines of climate change will kill us all in 10 years, or that Florida would be underwater by 2012. That is not true.
"There's hundreds of climate scientists that make good arguments as to why global warming may not be man made."
Source...? While we're on the topic, here's one that says otherwise:
It's a book, but they provided a helpful description, part of which says: "Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for--and in many cases is already affecting--a broad range of human and natural systems."
Why this source is reliable: this is a consensus study report from 2010 (so, reasonably recent) by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The NASEM has over 6,300 reputable members, and as a national academy, essentially coordinates all scientific research in the US. A consensus study report looks at all the evidence so far on a subject, and "has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task."
There are certainly more sources, but I don't want to make this comment too long. I feel like that one is sufficient for now.
"Man doesnt have the records yet to make that call. They only go back to 1880."
By "records", I assume you mean people actually measuring and recording data about the environment. Luckily, that's not the only way scientists can get information about the past. The comic I sent you, xkcd.com/1723, graphs Earth's temperature since 20,000 BCE, and cites several scholarly sources. This website has a list of them, with direct links to the sources in question. I'm not citing a webcomic, but I am citing the things the webcomic cited.
"We know for a fact that the climate has been changing for thousands of years before that."
Indeed, it has. But the climate is changing *much* more rapidly now - as Randall Munroe put it, it's like setting your car on fire and then telling you that your car's temperature has changed before. Furthermore, we're responsible for it, and while we certainly have longer than 10 years, it is highly problematic.
Thanks for hearing me out. A lot of people aren't nearly as mature.
I don't remember saying you were a "tinfoil hat guy," I said you believe it's a conspiracy, which you do. If that's what you think, that's fine. More power to you.
I was telling that other user not to expect sources.
You shouldn't assume that I don't have any knowledge on the subject. I didn't even express a POV
"who believes global warming is a conspiracy." Ive never said that. "Climate change denialists" dont say that climate change doesn't exist. Everyone agrees that climate change exists. There's just people that believe man is responsible and people who don't believe man is responsible.
If I may just ask your POV a little since we are already here. Why do you believe man is responsible for climate change?
I believe that politics should be irrelevant to science. Many of America's environmental problems have been created, compounded, fueled by the fact that we mix politics & environmental science - eg because the EPA is politically entrenched, they spend the majority of their budget on things that are less likely to kill you or me than a plane falling out of the sky, but are hot button panic issues nonetheless, so they garner attention & budget.
I believe the scientific evidence, nothing more, nothing less.
"Global warming" is a giant fucking headache for the government. They have no motivation to create a false narrative about it.
You did say that there is some motivation for the powers that be to LIE & create false evidence that global warming exists (man made global warming- outside of cyclical, normal climate change)...that's the definition of conspiracy & that's what you said.
As i said, think what you want. I dont feel the need to change your mind.
The reason I'm not answering your question in "why the government would lie about global warming" is because its a strawman. This is like debating a preacher on proof of god by asking him "if god is real WHY did he create the universe" you're forcing me to speculate. Its a dumb question. You said yourself you follow the science only but you dont. You are asking me to speculate and are not providing scientific evidence yourself. I get the sense that you don't really follow the science. If you did you would see that hundreds of climate scientists do not believe man is responsible for climate change. You have to remember the climate has been changing for thousands of years before carbon emissions. If you reallty want to follow the science I can provide you many of well qualified climatologists who share my view. Its not politically motivated on my part.
Btw you saying to the other guy "prepare for O Reilly factor logic" was actually very ironic because radiation is man made pollution. Saying that cell phone towers pollute is actually a very liberal view its the opposite of O reilly logic. I was surprised you disagreed with that being so big on global warming.
electromagnetic field from fridge/freezer disturbing sleep
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
I asked you what the motivation would be to fabricate evidence of global warming & you said it was a whole can of worms involving many people. Sounds like a conspiracy to me.
Anyways, I seriously don't care what you think.
If you want to believe my dad's a fake scientist, that's cool. Maybe he works for fake Al Gore with his fabricated excel charts made of science-tistics & his weather machine that controls the gravitational pull of the moon.
--
McBean
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
FromTheSouthWeirdMan
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Okay Countess. *smirk* That remark was the last straw. Now, you're making me seriously excited. 😀
The 'charts' only go back to 1880 so there's not much to go off of anyway. And why do you have to try to label me some tinfoil hat person? Gravitational pull of the moon? Really?
I dont understand why you get so offended by my views on it when you have absolutely no knowledge at all about the subject. If you're so certain about the subject, certain enough to suggest I'm a tinfoil hat guy, you should have no problem citing evidence yourself. Why can't you do that?
--
palehorse
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
CountessDouche
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
"Why do you have to try to label me some tinfoil hat person?"
Well, "humans are the primary cause of climate change" has indisputably been the scientific consensus for decades. You don't really seem like a tinfoil hat person, though. Based on the YouTube link you just sent me, I'm guessing maybe just a little too ready to believe unreliable sources.
I'm busy tonight, but I'll type up something for you later, since is kind of important. In the meantime, can you promise to keep an open mind?
Also, relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1732/
--
FromTheSouthWeirdMan
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
Yes, but the predictions never came true. Florida was supposed to be under water by 2012. A new prediction says we have 10 more years before the apocalypse. There's hundreds of climate scientists that make good arguments as to why global warming may not be man made. Man doesnt have the records yet to make that call. They only go back to 1880. We know for a fact that the climate has been changing for thousands of years before that. Will you keep an open mind too? I can give you hundreds of very well qualified climatologists that give you an argument as to why climate scientists got it wrong. Ive listened to both arguments and to me the first ones make more sense. Its not a silly argument when you really look at the evidence with an open mind.
Science is always changing. In the 1990 doctors operated on babies while theyy were awake believing they felt no pain. Until 5 years ago cardiologists believed all fats caused heart disease. Now they're saying fats like olive oil reduce your risk. Science is always changing. Its dangerous to assume you ALWAYS have it right. You should never have a bias scientifically.
--
palehorse
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Oy, I'm back. I agree with you that science is always changing - that's why it's science, it has to adapt to new evidence. I will keep an open mind.
Let me just address what you posted first.
"Yes, but the predictions never came true. Florida was supposed to be under water by 2012. A new prediction says we have 10 more years before the apocalypse."
...what? What prediction are you talking about? I have heard literally zero reputable sources say anything near the lines of climate change will kill us all in 10 years, or that Florida would be underwater by 2012. That is not true.
"There's hundreds of climate scientists that make good arguments as to why global warming may not be man made."
Source...? While we're on the topic, here's one that says otherwise:
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12782/advancing-the-science-of-climate-change
It's a book, but they provided a helpful description, part of which says: "Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for--and in many cases is already affecting--a broad range of human and natural systems."
Why this source is reliable: this is a consensus study report from 2010 (so, reasonably recent) by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The NASEM has over 6,300 reputable members, and as a national academy, essentially coordinates all scientific research in the US. A consensus study report looks at all the evidence so far on a subject, and "has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task."
There are certainly more sources, but I don't want to make this comment too long. I feel like that one is sufficient for now.
"Man doesnt have the records yet to make that call. They only go back to 1880."
By "records", I assume you mean people actually measuring and recording data about the environment. Luckily, that's not the only way scientists can get information about the past. The comic I sent you, xkcd.com/1723, graphs Earth's temperature since 20,000 BCE, and cites several scholarly sources. This website has a list of them, with direct links to the sources in question. I'm not citing a webcomic, but I am citing the things the webcomic cited.
https://explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1732:_Earth_Temperature_Timeline#Sources
"We know for a fact that the climate has been changing for thousands of years before that."
Indeed, it has. But the climate is changing *much* more rapidly now - as Randall Munroe put it, it's like setting your car on fire and then telling you that your car's temperature has changed before. Furthermore, we're responsible for it, and while we certainly have longer than 10 years, it is highly problematic.
Thanks for hearing me out. A lot of people aren't nearly as mature.
I don't remember saying you were a "tinfoil hat guy," I said you believe it's a conspiracy, which you do. If that's what you think, that's fine. More power to you.
I was telling that other user not to expect sources.
You shouldn't assume that I don't have any knowledge on the subject. I didn't even express a POV
--
FromTheSouthWeirdMan
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
"who believes global warming is a conspiracy." Ive never said that. "Climate change denialists" dont say that climate change doesn't exist. Everyone agrees that climate change exists. There's just people that believe man is responsible and people who don't believe man is responsible.
If I may just ask your POV a little since we are already here. Why do you believe man is responsible for climate change?
--
CountessDouche
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I believe that politics should be irrelevant to science. Many of America's environmental problems have been created, compounded, fueled by the fact that we mix politics & environmental science - eg because the EPA is politically entrenched, they spend the majority of their budget on things that are less likely to kill you or me than a plane falling out of the sky, but are hot button panic issues nonetheless, so they garner attention & budget.
I believe the scientific evidence, nothing more, nothing less.
"Global warming" is a giant fucking headache for the government. They have no motivation to create a false narrative about it.
You did say that there is some motivation for the powers that be to LIE & create false evidence that global warming exists (man made global warming- outside of cyclical, normal climate change)...that's the definition of conspiracy & that's what you said.
As i said, think what you want. I dont feel the need to change your mind.
--
FromTheSouthWeirdMan
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
The reason I'm not answering your question in "why the government would lie about global warming" is because its a strawman. This is like debating a preacher on proof of god by asking him "if god is real WHY did he create the universe" you're forcing me to speculate. Its a dumb question. You said yourself you follow the science only but you dont. You are asking me to speculate and are not providing scientific evidence yourself. I get the sense that you don't really follow the science. If you did you would see that hundreds of climate scientists do not believe man is responsible for climate change. You have to remember the climate has been changing for thousands of years before carbon emissions. If you reallty want to follow the science I can provide you many of well qualified climatologists who share my view. Its not politically motivated on my part.
Btw you saying to the other guy "prepare for O Reilly factor logic" was actually very ironic because radiation is man made pollution. Saying that cell phone towers pollute is actually a very liberal view its the opposite of O reilly logic. I was surprised you disagreed with that being so big on global warming.