• Tucker Carlson: Bill Nye the Science guy Interview over Climate Change.
    222 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51892135]What the hell is going on in this thread? Have you people completely lost the ability to read and just jump the gun to shit on a "climate change denier"? [B]He said he accepts that humans are the main contributing factor to the climate change. [/B]What is wrong with you? And then he goes to talk about why aren't the people who are calling on alarm for global warming want to invest in technologies that will take decades to develop before they can take over the power industry instead of strongly promoting nuclear [B]now[/B]. I don't agree with his doubts on the degree of our influence but we should be pushing for nuclear. That would get rid of all the coal power plants. That would be a huge step forward no? I'm going to get shit for taking away your fun now, ain't I? [editline]1st March 2017[/editline] Also Tudd. What evidence would convince you that we know to what degree humans influence climate? Like what are you looking for?[/QUOTE] Why is this post getting boxes? Tudd is god awful at debating but we should answer his actual question instead strawmanning (unless he pulled his classic "ignore all the counter points and shift the goal post" move again and i misses it) Like the question sil is asking tudd is the proper one to ask
ye you've missed the goalpost move, that's why he's getting dumbs. that and because yesterday Sil failed to read for comprehension me saying the same thing 5 times and got mad cause im "going for SICK zingers" :thinking: if you read the whole thread shits been answered a hundred times, not just strawmanning. those are cropping up because people are putting denial and skepticism in the same boat for good reason: has the same net effect.
Carlson us asking a question which is ill-posed as asked. It would be like asking a particle physicist, "How much do photons contribute to warmth? If there were no photons, how cold would I be now?" That's a very simplistic idea of how this sort of research works. We have a measured correlation between warming and the amount of CO2 humans release into the atmosphere. We have a proposed mechanism of action, the greenhouse effect, which even a lot of the uninformed admit makes perfect sense. Hence we have a model of human-caused global warming, and empirical evidence continues to support that model. That's not enough for "skeptics" though, they don't just want strong evidence, they want strong evidence which proceeds in exactly the logical way they want research to work, despite their immature understanding of how it actually works. And the idea that science is about "extreme skepticism" is just silly. Science is about just the right amount of skepticism, or else we'd all be a bunch of Descartes, sitting around wondering if anything exists or all of our faculties lie to us. It's about skepticism of new claims until we have a significant body of evidence which can be publicly reproduced and verified. And of course old claims should be put to new and more stringent tests once in a while, but Carlson makes it sound like we're all supposed to not believe anything because we haven't put it to every conceivable test.
[t]https://f.lewd.se/2rZmLk_firefox_2017-03-01_17-54-18.png[/t] I find it rather amusing that Tucker's default facial expression is how I feel when listening to him :v:
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51892135] Also Tudd. What evidence would convince you that we know to what degree humans influence climate? Like what are you looking for?[/QUOTE] Pretty much just any more studies people want to post regarding nature baselines and measurable human offsets in relation to environmental changes. But seeing how most people in this thread can't even fundamentally understand what I am asking for, and instead just rather call me a climate denier/the usual garbo, we might be here for awhile. Though srobins posted something in the realm I was looking for.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51895753]Pretty much just any more studies people want to post regarding nature baselines and measurable human offsets in relation to environmental changes. But seeing how most people in this thread can't even fundamentally understand what I am asking for, and instead just rather call me a climate denier/the usual garbo, we might be here for awhile. Though srobins posted something in the realm I was looking for.[/QUOTE] I know this has been posted before, and while it's not a scientific, it's very, very intuitive: [url]https://xkcd.com/1732/[/url] Look how fast temperature changes have traditionally happened, now look at our current trend. The delta between those two is approximately the effect we're having as humans. You've already said that you accept that humans are the main factor, and I'm gonna be cheeky and assume that by that you mean it's more than 50%. So far so good, but how much accuracy do you want? Any answer you'll get will be based on a model that will of course have margins of error that are probably fairly large due to the difficult nature of, y'know, modelling the earth's climate. I guess what I'm asking is, if you accept that the answer is probably "most of it", what does the "actual" number - that may have large margins of error attached to it - matter? If you're really interested in that debate, I'd guess you wouldn't need Facepunch to serve you links.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51895753]Pretty much just any more studies people want to post regarding nature baselines and measurable human offsets in relation to environmental changes. But seeing how most people in this thread can't even fundamentally understand what I am asking for, and instead just rather call me a climate denier/the usual garbo, we might be here for awhile. Though srobins posted something in the realm I was looking for.[/QUOTE] That's going to be difficult to quantify because it depends on what rate we emit co2, and any positive feedback loops that human driven climate change has caused, such as methane outgassing from ice, etc. You would have to assume the future rates of Co2 emission and say well if it's this case it might be X. The natural baseline would probably be within reason similar to what it was in the 1700s before mass industrialization. Then you'd have to factor in natural emission since that timeline (like volcanoes and such).
this is like delaying treatment to debate over whether air pollution or smoking was the bigger contributing factor to your lung cancer lmfao
[QUOTE=Tudd;51895753]Pretty much just any more studies people want to post regarding nature baselines and measurable human offsets in relation to environmental changes. But seeing how most people in this thread can't even fundamentally understand what I am asking for, and instead just rather call me a climate denier/the usual garbo, we might be here for awhile. Though srobins posted something in the realm I was looking for.[/QUOTE] this is really stuff you should google for yourself tbh nature baseline is in any of the graphs you see from ice columns [img]http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/files/2010/05/carbon_dioxide_800k_narrow.png[/img] human offset is everything since then lol (img from nasa) [img]http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/files/2010/05/natural_anthropogenic_models_narrow.png[/img]
"what would happen in this hypothetical situation?" "hmm, probably not the way it is right now, this would be like that and that like this..." "NO WAY YOU CANT KNOW ITS A HYPOTHETICAL AND AND AND.... we're outta time!" I have so much respect for Bill, to be able to STILL go on these scumbags shows do his best to answer their dogshit questions that literally any fucking child would ask and actually still learn more. The fact he is 'just asking basic questions' IS the problem, we've known about climate change for over 50 years
[QUOTE=Tudd;51895753]Pretty much just any more studies people want to post regarding nature baselines and measurable human offsets in relation to environmental changes. But seeing how most people in this thread can't even fundamentally understand what I am asking for, and instead just rather call me a climate denier/the usual garbo, we might be here for awhile. Though srobins posted something in the realm I was looking for.[/QUOTE] I understand what you're asking for. Do you?
[QUOTE=da space core;51893656]Why is this post getting boxes? Tudd is god awful at debating but we should answer his actual question instead strawmanning (unless he pulled his classic "ignore all the counter points and shift the goal post" move again and i misses it) Like the question sil is asking tudd is the proper one to ask[/QUOTE] People are answering his questions, he just wants something impossible. He wants demonstrably irrefutable proof, which can't be done. [QUOTE=Tudd;51895753]Pretty much just any more studies people want to post regarding nature baselines and measurable human offsets in relation to environmental changes. But seeing how most people in this thread can't even fundamentally understand what I am asking for, and instead just rather call me a climate denier/the usual garbo, we might be here for awhile. Though srobins posted something in the realm I was looking for.[/QUOTE] You know you've got a really bad crucifixion complex.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51895753]Pretty much just any more studies people want to post regarding nature baselines and measurable human offsets in relation to environmental changes.[/quote] Sources for the degree of human influence on climate change have been provided. Sources for the probably effects of climate change and the timetable for them have been provided. Every time someone provides a source you change what you're asking and spout off about "You aren't answering what I'm actually asking for, you can't read". This is made funnier by the fact that you clearly didn't read your own sources that you cited in this thread as they provide some of the answers you were looking for while simultaneously defeating your argument that "durr scientists don't know anything, look at them changing their position on polar bears and the ice caps!". Your position thus far has been thinly veiled antiscience rhetoric and childish questions which are essentially "Is that object a sphere?" "How much of a sphere is it?" "No, no, no EXACTLY how spherical is it and what would happen if that sphere was a square??" These questions do not contribute to your understanding of climate change. The only reasons I can think that you would ask them are that you have not even a cursory understanding of the topic at hand or you're doing it in a shoddy attempt at making people look dumb. [quote] But seeing how most people in this thread can't even fundamentally understand what I am asking for, and instead just rather call me a climate denier/the usual garbo,[/quote] I haven't done anything of the sort thus far. Sure there are people calling you that, but they are by far the minority in this thread. The majority of us have provided precisely as you ask, but you ignore that so you can continue having a victim complex. [quote] we might be here for awhile. Though srobins posted something in the realm I was looking for.[/QUOTE] Multiple people have provided the closest things possible to what you are looking for. You keep shifting what you want so you can spout off about us "Not understanding you".
Tudd: all I'm asking for is all the data that I'm going to ignore. *20 well thought out posts later* Tudd: I'm not a denier i swear now where's the data???
Tudd, I'm a little confused over this whole conversation. Well, the parts you were involved in, anyway. I like to think I'm not like the majority of the posters crucifying you for your opinions here, and that I understand your contention. It's been helpfully laid out multiple times in the thread as three core points. You [I]do[/I] agree climate change is a thing, you [I]do[/I] agree that humans are a part of it and (as far as I can tell) you accept that humans are even responsible for a majority part of it. Assuming I have that correct, I'd like to speculate a little bit. The main reason everyone is still arguing here is because you keep contesting the exact severity of humanity's impact, while everyone else is confused to why that exactly matters. If all three of the above criteria has been met for what is basically a "doomsday scenario", it's better not to waste time debating how screwed we all really are. I think, [I]think,[/I] the major disconnect here isn't from you just being so woefully ignorant you can't make logical conclusions, but from several caveats you have with 'the lefts' approach to this situation. It comes across in this thread - mainly from you meeting several questions like "if all the evidence matches up, why isn't it a problem?" with "well, why haven't we invested more in nuclear energy if it's a problem?" - that you do concede that it's a real problem, and that you just don't agree with the 'narrative' put forward about it. Would that be accurate to say? That you take more issue with how its commonly regarded, and how the media presents it? I think that's a fair angle to take with it, but I won't lie, from the way the conversation has gone in this thread, it has come across a few times that you just seem resistant to the idea of climate change and its dangers in general. I would almost agree that it's become an incredibly politicized topic, but I would also argue that it's almost necessary that it is, to invoke the urgency needed to deal with it.
Every interview I've seen by Tucker, they praise him for being good at his job but why? Every interview I've seen he asks questions that are either totally irrelevant or impossible to give a real answer to and then he calls them out for not answering them the way he wants. He also constantly interrupts guests on his airtime.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51895753]Pretty much just any more studies people want to post regarding nature baselines and measurable human offsets in relation to environmental changes. But seeing how most people in this thread can't even fundamentally understand what I am asking for, and instead just rather call me a climate denier/the usual garbo, we might be here for awhile. Though srobins posted something in the realm I was looking for.[/QUOTE] why do you treat it like the information is some kind of arcane art? anyone can google those exact questions in minutes and get data from multiple sources. it's a classic internet argument where you put continually higher and higher burden of proof on the other side until people run out of fucks to give about your ignorance and just leave and yes, the whole idea is a spin on the classic denier argument of 'there's just not enough data!' to downplay it, it's literally been going on for a decade now. no matter how much new evidence or understanding comes to light to reaffirm this, the bar apparently just gets higher and higher. absolutely textbook climate denial if all this is untrue, feel free to clarify your view. but please actually clarify it instead of continuously sidestepping the core issue. "I don't believe that humans have a significant enough contribution to climate change [B]that we don't need to seriously change the way we act[/B]" is tucker's apparent stance. how does yours differ, if at all?
[QUOTE=Dirty_Ape;51896723]Every interview I've seen by Tucker, they praise him for being good at his job but why? [/QUOTE] To be a fan of Tucker you have to be uninformed, disinterested in facts, and able to ignore anything that proves you wrong. Personally, I'm kind of glad the guy exists. Finding out somebody is a Carlson fan is a pretty decent baseline for knowing you can ignore them.
I'm gonna take a wild guess and say Tudd doesn't really[I] really [/I]believe in human-led climate change, he just pretends he does because the instant he states he's a denier people are going to rip him a new one, so he just awkwardly skits around the statement.
[QUOTE=Annoyed Grunt;51898701]I'm gonna take a wild guess and say Tudd doesn't really[I] really [/I]believe in human-led climate change, he just pretends he does because the instant he states he's a denier people are going to rip him a new one, so he just awkwardly skits around the statement.[/QUOTE] lets not do this again it appears to break causality creating a time loop
I don't know the reliability or trustworthiness of this source, but [URL=https://www.wunderground.com/climate/PETM.asp?MR=1]here's[/URL] a comparison of current global warming and the warming that occurred on the transition from Paleocene to Eocene. It appears to be fairly well sourced. [IMG]http://icons.wxug.com/metgraphics/climate/petm_vs_modern_emissions.png[/IMG] Especially this image and table 1 shows a clear overview of how the two periods of warming compare. And [URL=http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n7/full/ngeo1179.html]here[/URL] is a scientific article that analyzes the rate of warming in that period as well, which states [I]"Our simulations show that the peak rate of carbon addition was probably in the range of 0.3–1.7 Pg C yr−1, much slower than the present rate of carbon emissions."[/I]. It should be pretty obvious that if human activity isn't the main contributor, then we should be very worried about the fact that we have no idea where it's coming from. Occam's razor, however, makes it fairly easy to conclude that our unprecedented output of CO2 probably corresponds to the unprecedented rate of warming.
Weather Underground is an acclaimed weather service created by Dr. Jeff Masters. [quote]About Tagline Dr. Jeff Masters, Director of Meteorology for wunderground.com Introduction Dr. Jeff Masters has been a meteorologist since 1982. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986 - 1991, and earned his Ph.D. in air pollution meteorology in 1997 from the University of Michigan. He co-founded the Weather Underground, Inc. in 1995, and served on its board of directors until the company was sold to the Weather Channel in 2012. He writes one of the most popular Internet weather blogs.[/quote] They're generally pretty reliable. They used to have a nice section on climate change but it seems they took that off the new site after getting bought by Weather Channel. (go figure)
[QUOTE=da space core;51893656]Why is this post getting boxes? Tudd is god awful at debating but we should answer his actual question instead strawmanning (unless he pulled his classic "ignore all the counter points and shift the goal post" move again and i misses it) Like the question sil is asking tudd is the proper one to ask[/QUOTE] Because some people here just want to have fun flaming a climate change denier and feel good about it and I'm taking away their fun by saying he isn't denying that it's happening or even that humans are the main contributing factor. [QUOTE=DOG-GY;51893681]that and because yesterday Sil failed to read for comprehension me saying the same thing 5 times and got mad cause im "going for SICK zingers" :thinking:[/QUOTE] You are a disingenuous hack. This is a zinger that you posted yesterday: [QUOTE=DOG-GY;51886974]Remember this day folks as the point where Silly Sil failed to read a breakdown of basic logic and statistics five times in a row.[/QUOTE] And my comment about you making zingers was [I]specifically [/I]about that post. Also you would be much more convincing[B] if you didn't repeat the same zinger in the very sentence you claim you are not making zingers[/B] lmao [QUOTE=DOG-GY;51893087]You don't need to have a certainty of 100% that it'll be 35 years and 2 days down the line at 6:00 pm GMT and a 420.001 on the Richter scale to know that when it comes it's gonna definitely be above a 360 and the entire planet is shit outta luck. This is why there is consensus. This is why there is no serious debate over the severity of the effects. This is why the whole line of questioning is illogical. No matter what Earth will rattle itself to shreds.[/QUOTE] Smoking gun that you have no interest in trying to understand what people like Tudd and Tucker want. I tried explaining this to you numerous times and you just don't give a shit. And the reason why I didn't address your arguments why the question is flawed isn't because I disagree with you that it's flawed. But I disagree that because it's flawed, it must be asked with malicious intent. It's not a gotcha question at all. Wanting to know the degree of human influence over climate is the next logical step after accepting that climate change is happening and that humans contribute to it. But you don't care. You have read their minds or something and decided that it's a lie and they must be insincere when they are asking this question. [QUOTE=Tudd;51895753]Pretty much just any more studies people want to post regarding nature baselines and measurable human offsets in relation to environmental changes.[/QUOTE] Tudd, I can't give you a percentage but I can give you some comparisons. I assume you understand the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle"]carbon cycle[/URL]. [IMG]https://s9.postimg.org/taryjbxwf/Carbon_Cycle.gif[/IMG] Numbers represent flux of carbon dioxide in gigatons. source: [URL="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml#1"]Figure 7.3, IPCC AR4 [/URL] Now according to [URL="https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions"]Global Carbon Project[/URL] humans have produced only from burning fossil fuels ~32 gigatons of CO2 on average annually between 2002 and 2014. This adds up to ~411 gigatonnes of CO2 realeased into air only in years 2002 to 2014. Not all of that stays in the air, some is absorbed in the carbon cycle. But what stayed, and added up over the years since the industrial revolution was enough to increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere from about 280 parts per million to 387 parts per million, a 39 percent increase. A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years. [URL="https://www.co2.earth/co2-ice-core-data"]Raw numbers[/URL] [URL="https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-atmospheric-concentrations-greenhouse-gases"]are on this sites.[/URL] [url=http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/]Also this is how we know that this additional CO2 was realeased by humans.[/url] So if we were to compare raise of 100ppm in 5,000 years to raise of 100ppm in 120 years. That's a rate of 0,02ppm/year in the past to 0,83ppm/year now. Now you probably know that climate changes over time by natural means. And that CO2 levels correspond with that change, pictured here. [IMG]https://s9.postimg.org/5w0x27h27/sks_co2_400kyr_850.jpg[/IMG] Now we are past the warming period but hypothetically assuming we are in a situation where the climate is getting warmer by natural processes and humans are adding to this effect, we would still be responsbile for ~97,6% of the increase in CO2 concentration in air. That percentage is actually higher because we are not in the naturally warming period. As for temperature. It's pretty similar. According to [URL="http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php"]earthobservatory.nasa.gov[/URL] [quote]As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming. Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.[/quote] So the math for temperature is up to 7 degrees per 5000 years vs 0.7 degrees in 100 years. That's 0,0014 °C/year to 0,007 °C/year. So if we hypothetically were in a naturally warming period and were adding to the effect 0,007°C/year-0,0014°C/year=0,0056. And 0,0056°C/year out of 0,007°C/year is [U]80%[/U]. That is if we were in the naturally warming period and we're not. If you are not tired yet [URL="https://skepticalscience.com/humans_survived_previous_changes.html"]here's a fun article[/URL] as a response to Rick Perry going "Yes, our climates change. They've been changing ever since the Earth was formed."
what is your deal
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;51900758]what is your deal[/QUOTE] What do you mean? I just gave Tudd bunch of stats to give him a bit of perspective on "how much control we humans have over climate compared to natural causes". His question might be flawed because it assumes outside, unknown force, but you can attempt to more or less answer his question or at least if not the question directly (because of it's flawed phrasing) then you can address the thing he's wondering about. I showed him a a comparison between how fast the raise of CO2 concentration was in the past to now. And the same for temperate. Also showed him some numbers for carbon circle compared to what we produce. What's not to understand here? [editline]2nd March 2017[/editline] I don't know why you guys think giving Tudd more stuff proving that humans are responsible for climate change is dumb but whatever.
I like it when it rains, it feels nice on my skin
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51900579] Tudd, I can't give you a percentage but I can give you some comparisons. I assume you understand the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle"]carbon cycle[/URL]. [IMG]https://s9.postimg.org/taryjbxwf/Carbon_Cycle.gif[/IMG] Numbers represent flux of carbon dioxide in gigatons. source: [URL="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml#1"]Figure 7.3, IPCC AR4 [/URL] Now according to [URL="https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions"]Global Carbon Project[/URL] humans have produced only from burning fossil fuels ~32 gigatons of CO2 on average annually between 2002 and 2014. This adds up to ~411 gigatonnes of CO2 realeased into air only in years 2002 to 2014. Not all of that stays in the air, some is absorbed in the carbon cycle. But what stayed, and added up over the years since the industrial revolution was enough to increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere from about 280 parts per million to 387 parts per million, a 39 percent increase. A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years. [URL="https://www.co2.earth/co2-ice-core-data"]Raw numbers[/URL] [URL="https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-atmospheric-concentrations-greenhouse-gases"]are on this sites.[/URL] [url=http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/]Also this is how we know that this additional CO2 was realeased by humans.[/url] So if we were to compare raise of 100ppm in 5,000 years to raise of 100ppm in 120 years. That's a rate of 0,02ppm/year in the past to 0,83ppm/year now. Now you probably know that climate changes over time by natural means. And that CO2 levels correspond with that change, pictured here. [IMG]https://s9.postimg.org/5w0x27h27/sks_co2_400kyr_850.jpg[/IMG] Now we are past the warming period but hypothetically assuming we are in a situation where the climate is getting warmer by natural processes and humans are adding to this effect, we would still be responsbile for ~97,6% of the increase in CO2 concentration in air. That percentage is actually higher because we are not in the naturally warming period. As for temperature. It's pretty similar. According to [URL="http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php"]earthobservatory.nasa.gov[/URL] So the math for temperature is up to 7 degrees per 5000 years vs 0.7 degrees in 100 years. That's 0,0014 °C/year to 0,007 °C/year. So if we hypothetically were in a naturally warming period and were adding to the effect 0,007°C/year-0,0014°C/year=0,0056. And 0,0056°C/year out of 0,007°C/year is [U]80%[/U]. That is if we were in the naturally warming period and we're not. If you are not tired yet [URL="https://skepticalscience.com/humans_survived_previous_changes.html"]here's a fun article[/URL] as a response to Rick Perry going "Yes, our climates change. They've been changing ever since the Earth was formed."[/QUOTE] Thanks for the response. I comprehend and agree with every study that has been presented in regards to human's contribution to CO2 emissions. So I don't think we need to keep drudging this up anymore in an effort to not waste more time for people. The temperature part is kind of what I been looking for. Now I have to wonder why Bill Nye couldn't have answered to Tucker Carlson in a similar way. Though at the same time I don't think Tucker was really wrong for stated the science isn't "settled" or that he is a complete asshole for asking some kind of scale/percentage of how we have affected the environment.
What temperature it's going to be in x years? You won't be able to tell locally. Best you could do would be an average with some margin of error.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51906998]Thanks for the response. I comprehend and agree with every study that has been presented in regards to human's contribution to CO2 emissions. So I don't think we need to keep drudging this up anymore in an effort to not waste more time for people. [B]The temperature part is kind of what I been looking for.[/B] Now I have to wonder why Bill Nye couldn't have answered to Tucker Carlson in a similar way. Though at the same time I don't think Tucker was really wrong for stated the science isn't "settled" or that he is a complete asshole for asking some kind of scale/percentage of how we have affected the environment.[/QUOTE] What is the point of setting such a specific goal other than to win the debate that it's not settled? We have a clear trend of rising temperatures, plainly visible consequences, and the scientists all agree that we're causing it. Are we going to just sit and do nothing while things get worse just because the number that shows how fucked we are isn't exact enough? And Carlson's an asshole for holding talking points in a higher regard than concern for the environment, but also because he interrupts people constantly and is unnecessarily defensive and toxic.
How is the exact precise 100% accurate measurement even relevant? It doesn't fucking matter, and it definitely does not make the issue "not settled". If somebody cuts off your leg, do you sit around and try to count the exact amount of blood you're losing down to the nanoliter and just discount everyone who tells you that you need to take drastic measures to not die of blood loss? If the physicians can't agree on a rate of blood loss, is it "not settled"? Do you really think you could get by on a band-aid when all the doctors are screaming at you to let them fix the arteries and compress the wound? What is even the point of the question if not to by some ass-backwards method attempt to discredit climate science?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.