• 21 kids suing US gov over climate change denial; Trump to be the defendant come January 20th
    125 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Kigen;51395178]-snip- Fuck it, I don't want to go down this road. Another, "if you disagree your an idiot" type thing.[/QUOTE] There's so much overwhelming evidence in favor of global warming [I]not just being a natural phenomenon[/I] that saying "but it's just a natural occurrence guys" is only going to get you painted as an idiot. Especially if at the same time you're trying bargain around the idea by pointing at other similar and [I]related[/I] issues to bring attention away from the legit problems.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;51395224]There's so much overwhelming evidence in favor of global warming [I]not just being a natural phenomenon[/I] that saying "but it's just a natural occurrence guys" is only going to get you painted as an idiot. Especially if at the same time you're trying bargain around the idea by pointing at other similar and [I]related[/I] issues to bring attention away from the legit problems.[/QUOTE] Calling him an idiot accomplishes as much as saying climate change is a natural process.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51395202][video=youtube;LRhkKjquWZw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRhkKjquWZw[/video][/QUOTE] Odd how he fails to mention that he has the nuclear and logging industry in his pockets.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;51395224]There's so much overwhelming evidence in favor of global warming [I]not just being a natural phenomenon[/I] that saying "but it's just a natural occurrence guys" is only going to get you painted as an idiot. Especially if at the same time you're trying bargain around the idea by pointing at other similar and [I]related[/I] issues to bring attention away from the legit problems.[/QUOTE] The only people at actually believe this crap are people who are not atmospheric scientists. The media does a good job of shoving any narrative down the public's throat. Because you know, doom and gloom sell headlines. So why not repeatedly tell everyone that the world is going to end in the near future due to global warming. Pollution is bad, but not because of global warming. Its bad because you inhale what is spit out of those factories. Just like plant and animal life. I have yet to find an actual scientific paper proving the link between human CO2 emissions and global warming. The only papers I find just make a hand waving gesture saying its a possibility. Sorry for being skeptical. But its something I've learned long ago that even main stream, popular opinions, can be wrong. [editline]19th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Novangel;51395254]Odd how he fails to mention that he has the nuclear and logging industry in his pockets.[/QUOTE] Nuclear benefits from the getting a rid of coal. So I'm not sure what you want from that.
I'm no enviromental scientist either. All I know is we need to take care of our planet if we don't want terrible things to happen. I'm skeptical of everything around me and the media as well, and the issue with figures like these is that they [i]cannot[/i] be more than predictions and estimates, but they're predictions and estimates based on what we know of how the ecological system works. The direct effects of global warming can be explained through images but if they're so easily dismissed as slog the media spoonfeeds to the uneducated masses to sway public opinion then how can we ever hope to change your opinion if you're so dismissive? I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't watch the news because most of it is just bullshit. We have the figures. We have the models. They're all based on estimates and guesses. They aren't 100% perfect, but they're pretty accurate, because scientists themselves know that being critical of the papers you release is of utmost importance because scientists study nature and the mechanics of things, they're so close to the truth of things it has to be as exact as possible.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51395255][B]The only people at actually believe this crap are people who are not atmospheric scientists[/B]. The media does a good job of shoving any narrative down the public's throat. Because you know, doom and gloom sell headlines. So why not repeatedly tell everyone that the world is going to end in the near future due to global warming. Pollution is bad, but not because of global warming. Its bad because you inhale what is spit out of those factories. Just like plant and animal life. I have yet to find an actual scientific paper proving the link between human CO2 emissions and global warming. The only papers I find just make a hand waving gesture saying its a possibility. Sorry for being skeptical. But its something I've learned long ago that even main stream, popular opinions, can be wrong.[/QUOTE] [url=https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/about-ams/ams-statements/statements-of-the-ams-in-force/climate-change/]Someone should let the American Meteorological Society know[/url] [url=http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/]And all these guys too[/url]
[QUOTE=Kigen;51395255]The only people at actually believe this crap are people who are not atmospheric scientists.[/QUOTE] Literally 97% of Scientists say Climate Change is real and 95% of those say Humans are doing it.
[QUOTE=Sitkero;51395284][url=https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/about-ams/ams-statements/statements-of-the-ams-in-force/climate-change/]Someone should let the American Meteorological Society know[/url] [url=http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/]And all these guys too[/url][/QUOTE] Yes, they should. [t]http://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/1309_consensus-graphic-2015-768px.jpg[/t] Odd unexplained dip in the 1940-1980 range. Don't you think... What could explain that....
[QUOTE=Kigen;51395301]Yes, they should. [t]http://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/1309_consensus-graphic-2015-768px.jpg[/t] Odd unexplained dip in the 1940-1980 range. Don't you think... What could explain that....[/QUOTE] It's almost as if temperature anomalies fluctuate, as seen by the graph
[QUOTE=Recurracy;51395281]I'm no enviromental scientist either. All I know is we need to take care of our planet if we don't want terrible things to happen. I'm skeptical of everything around me and the media as well, and the issue with figures like these is that they [i]cannot[/i] be more than predictions and estimates, but they're predictions and estimates based on what we know of how the ecological system works. The direct effects of global warming can be explained through images but if they're so easily dismissed as slog the media spoonfeeds to the uneducated masses to sway public opinion then how can we ever hope to change your opinion if you're so dismissive? I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't watch the news because most of it is just bullshit. We have the figures. We have the models. They're all based on estimates and guesses. They aren't 100% perfect, but they're pretty accurate, because scientists themselves know that being critical of the papers you release is of utmost importance because scientists study nature and the mechanics of things, they're so close to the truth of things it has to be as exact as possible.[/QUOTE] Science isn't based on guessing. There can be guesses that turn into theories that then turn into laws (aka laws of physics). But anything can be made to look accurate. [t]https://researchtheheadlines.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/800px-piratesvstempen-svg.png[/t] Ultimately, that is why I want an actual scientific paper, that is peer reviewed, that truly proves human CO2 emissions are the cause of climate change. Because anything can be made to look relational to anything else.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51395202][video=youtube;LRhkKjquWZw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRhkKjquWZw[/video][/QUOTE] This guy has no fucking idea what he's talking about. "There is no scientific proof..." Because there's no such thing as scientific proof. Scientists find the most likely explanations for phenomena. Some are well supported by evidence, some are not. "Computer models might as well be crystal balls for all they're good for" This is totally false, we have extremely accurate computer models for many, many aspects of scientific study. Why would mathematics and lots of computation power make a model LESS credible? "Life flourished when CO2 was high" Yeah, when it had tens of millions of years to adapt. You know what corrleates with CO2 rising quickly? Mass extinction events. "An ice age happened once with CO2 rising" Yeah because of other factors like impact events and volcanic eruptions WHICH ARE FACTORD INTO CURRENT CLIMATE MODELS "There's no reason to believe that warmer climates would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species" This is what REALLY gets to me. You know what happens when temperatures rise quickly? Malaria thrives. Keystone species adapted to lower temperatures die, causing massive numbers of species that depended on them to also die. Here's a big one, ocean circulation stops. You know what happens when ocean circulation stops? Oxygen stops getting below the very surface. The oceans become stratified, with an oxic zone at the surface, and an anoxic zone below the surface. Nearly everything dies below the surface. There goes any human populations dependent on sea food. You know what doesn't die? Anoxic hydrogen-sulfide producing bacteria. Those things pump out hydrogen-sulfide, filling the oceans with it. You know what else higher temperatures means? More hurricanes. So, now we have hurricanes, now full of deadly hydrogen-sulfide, sweeping the coasts in a storm suffocating anything with an inefficient respiratory system. Like mammals. That's what killed off the megamammals allowing dinosaurs to rule the earth. The idea that temperature could suddenly rise and it would be beneficial to most of the species [I]which are adapted to the current environment[/I] is ludicrous on both a historical and evolutionary level. "Temperature has not been rising since 2000" Yeah they have, the video is outdated. They're going back up again, with 2015 having been the hottest on record. The lull was because climate is variable, with one explanation being that oceans absorbed more of the heat during this period. The trends on a larger scale are clear, however. "Why were there nearly identical temperature increases earlier in the 20th century?" Well if by nearly identical you mean "significantly smaller". Those were also in a large part due to human activity as well anyways. " Humans evolved for tropical environments" How can you be this short-sighted? We're a global species and we now depend on species across the globe. Just because humans can survive in warm environments doesn't mean that the species that we now need in order to survive can. "Most species didn't adapt to modern environments" He has NO idea what he's talking about. Literally every species on the planet is adapted to its environment. If you suddenly change that environment species die. It's literally what a mass extinction event is, huge numbers of species dying because a large change in global environement, on a planet full of extremely well-adapted and diverse species, necessarily means that huge numbers go extinct. Except now it's occurring at an unprecedented rate. This man is completely wrong in every single point he makes and it's baffling that you could just post that video as if it's some kind of be all end all zinger. It shows that you haven't researched a single thing he's said. Being skeptical doesn't mean ignoring the majority view in favor of blindly accepting a minority view. That's just called being contrarian. [editline]19th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Kigen;51395305]Science isn't based on guessing. There can be guesses that turn into theories that then turn into laws (aka laws of physics). But anything can be made to look accurate. [t]https://researchtheheadlines.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/800px-piratesvstempen-svg.png[/t] Ultimately, that is why I want an actual scientific paper, that is peer reviewed, that truly proves human CO2 emissions are the cause of climate change. Because anything can be made to look relational to anything else.[/QUOTE] No, theories do not become laws. Laws are mathematical descriptions of phenomena based on a particular theory. It's less than a theory, it's a small part of a theory. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SCIENTIFIC PROOF FOR A THEORY. The best that science can hope to produce for a complicated question is a well-supported theory. You need to research this shit because it sounds like you don't even know what science [i]is[/I].
[QUOTE=Kigen;51395305]Science isn't based on guessing. There can be guesses that turn into theories that then turn into laws (aka laws of physics). But anything can be made to look accurate. [t]https://researchtheheadlines.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/800px-piratesvstempen-svg.png[/t] Ultimately, that is why I want an actual scientific paper, that is peer reviewed, that truly proves human CO2 emissions are the cause of climate change. Because anything can be made to look relational to anything else.[/QUOTE] Look at any of the IPCC reports. [url]http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/[/url]
[QUOTE=Kigen;51395305]Science isn't based on guessing. There can be guesses that turn into theories that then turn into laws (aka laws of physics). But anything can be made to look accurate. [t]https://researchtheheadlines.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/800px-piratesvstempen-svg.png[/t] Ultimately, that is why I want an actual scientific paper, that is peer reviewed, that truly proves human CO2 emissions are the cause of climate change. Because anything can be made to look relational to anything else.[/QUOTE] [url=http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/worldweatherchanges.pdf]Will this one work?[/url] [editline]19th November 2016[/editline] If it doesn't, [url=https://scholar.google.co.uk/]find one yourself[/url]. It's kind of a pain in the ass finding an article that addresses human caused climate change on its own, since it's kind of just an objective truth at this point the vast majority of articles are aimed more at addressing its impact on everything [editline]19th November 2016[/editline] There's also [url=https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php]this[/url] page which has an exhausting list of points and counterpoints that are a little more condensed, in case you don't feel like searching for yourself
[QUOTE=Kigen;51395305]Science isn't based on guessing. There can be guesses that turn into theories that then turn into laws (aka laws of physics). But anything can be made to look accurate. Ultimately, that is why I want an actual scientific paper, that is peer reviewed, that truly proves human CO2 emissions are the cause of climate change. Because anything can be made to look relational to anything else.[/QUOTE] this is not a matter of opinion, and you simply not understanding the mechanics and science behind how it works is not sufficient to have an opinion that it is wrong. that is ignorance.
[QUOTE=Sitkero;51395385][url=http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/worldweatherchanges.pdf]Will this one work?[/url] [editline]19th November 2016[/editline] If it doesn't, [url=https://scholar.google.co.uk/]find one yourself[/url]. It's kind of a pain in the ass finding an article that addresses human caused climate change on its own, since it's kind of just an objective truth at this point the vast majority of articles are aimed more at addressing its impact on everything [editline]19th November 2016[/editline] There's also [url=https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php]this[/url] page which has an exhausting list of points and counterpoints that are a little more condensed, in case you don't feel like searching for yourself[/QUOTE] First one: [quote]We are entering the unknown with our climate. We need a global climate observing system, but only parts of it exist. We must not only take the vital signs of the planet but also assess why they are fluctuating and changing. Consequently, the system must embrace comprehensive analysis and assessment as integral components on an ongoing basis, as well as innovative research to better interpret results and improve our diagnostic capabilities. Projections into the future are part of such activity, and all aspects of an Earth information system feed into planning for the future, whether by planned adaptation or mitigation. Climate change is truly a global issue, one that may prove to be humanity’s greatest challenge. It is very unlikely to be adequately addressed without greatly improved international cooperation and action.[/quote] tl;dr: We don't actually know whats causing this. We suspect its CO2. But there isn't real proof. Need more data. Cool, a Google link. Just because something is accepted doesn't mean its true. Creationism was being taught as fact in public schools in this country not that long ago. Smoking was accepted and "proven" to be not harmful by "scientists" not that long ago either. Human knowledge is not complete. We are not all knowing. You should read the comment section of the skeptical science links. It might prove that just because certain segments wants it to be accepted as a fact does not make it an actual fact. [editline]19th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Crumpet;51395473]this is not a matter of opinion, and you simply not understanding the mechanics and science behind how it works is not sufficient to have an opinion that it is wrong. that is ignorance.[/QUOTE] Sorry for wanting actual evidence than someone's guess that CO2 is the major cause of climate change. There is a boat load of pseudo-science out there. And its scary that people just accept it because the media or government tells them so. Without presenting hard facts.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51395301]Yes, they should. [t]http://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/1309_consensus-graphic-2015-768px.jpg[/t] Odd unexplained dip in the 1940-1980 range. Don't you think... What could explain that....[/QUOTE] [img]http://i.imgur.com/9M23JbH.gif[/img]
[QUOTE=Kigen;51395481]First one: tl;dr: We don't actually know whats causing this. We suspect its CO2. But there isn't real proof. Need more data. Cool, a Google link. Just because something is accepted doesn't mean its true. Creationism was being taught as fact in public schools in this country not that long ago. Smoking was accepted and "proven" to be not harmful by "scientists" not that long ago either. Human knowledge is not complete. We are not all knowing. You should read the comment section of the skeptical science links. It might prove that just because certain segments wants it to be accepted as a fact does not make it an actual fact.[/QUOTE] At this point I cannot help but feel you're deliberately cherrypicking because holy fuck it's literally the second page [img]http://puu.sh/snnD0/774282c841.png[/img] The quote you lifted is clear the fuck at the tail end of the article which I suspect you skipped straight to because the rest of the article consisted of going on at great length about human CO2 emissions and their impact You asked for peer reviewed studies, that google link is specifically for searching through the [I]literal thousands[/I] of peer reviewed studies I did read the comments section. A lot. Most of it is questions, answers, rebuttals, and further discussion of human CO2 emissions impact
I can promise you that if we cut all CO2 emissions tomorrow that very little will change. Ultimately, until this actually happens I doubt I will be able to properly debate any of you. As we will repeatedly go around and around the point. My point is that every scientific paper I've seen always includes that little caveat that they don't honestly know. That there isn't enough data because we've only be reliably collecting weather data for a very short time span relative to the Earth's existence. And any look further back is normally done in ways that can be unreliable. I got talked down to just not that a few weeks ago when I was pointing out the fallacy of polls. Then the election happens. Hah. Too many people find it easier to just believe what is fed to them rather than looking for actual empirical data. If you want to continue to believe that humanity is the sole or major cause of climate change, go for it. Its not my job to sit here and disprove it. But my point is still here that there is NO empirical data that definitively proves humanity's link to major or being the sole cause of climate change. It is all guess work. But given the time frame of this, the effects will be decades out. So proving this incorrect will take a very long time. By the way, pollution (more than just CO2) is still bad. Since there is actual empirical data to prove its effects on humans, animals, and plants. But of course, the entire focus was because I didn't agree 100% with you guys. Which is retarded. Ignore the things we could work towards because of a minor disagreement. Why has so many restored to that.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51395548]I can promise you that if we cut all CO2 emissions tomorrow that very little will change. Ultimately, until this actually happens I doubt I will be able to properly debate any of you. As we will repeatedly go around and around the point. My point is that every scientific paper I've seen always includes that little caveat that they don't honestly know. That there isn't enough data because we've only be reliably collecting weather data for a very short time span relative to the Earth's existence. And any look further back is normally done in ways that can be unreliable. I got talked down to just not that a few weeks ago when I was pointing out the fallacy of polls. Then the election happens. Hah. Too many people find it easier to just believe what is fed to them rather than looking for actual empirical data. If you want to continue to believe that humanity is the sole or major cause of climate change, go for it. Its not my job to sit here and disprove it. But my point is still here that there is NO empirical data that definitively proves humanity's link to major or being the sole cause of climate change. It is all guess work. But given the time frame of this, the effects will be decades out. So proving this incorrect will take a very long time. By the way, pollution (more than just CO2) is still bad. Since there is actual empirical data to prove its effects on humans, animals, and plants. But of course, the entire focus was because I didn't agree 100% with you guys. Which is retarded. Ignore the things we could work towards because of a minor disagreement. Why has so many restored to that.[/QUOTE] very little will change because weve already put almost 400 billion tonnes of it into the atmosphere. come on dude. do you really think all these scientists are missing the point?
On a more scientific note, part of the thing about the effect of greenhouse gases are people do not understand the effect of just how CO2, H20 (which remains relatively unchanged and is natural), and other greenhouse gasses such as methane. If the earth was a blackbody, the average temperature would be about 5C. As the earth reflects some of the sun's light, about 30% is reflected, in which case the temperature would be about -18C, about 33C below the actual surface temperature. The earth emits long-wavelength infrared heat some of which is absorbed by different greenhouses gases which are not transparent to certain wavelengths. [img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png/800px-Atmospheric_Transmission.png[/img] So as you increase the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmoshpere, in effect it becomes less and less transparent to infrared heat. The non-transparent molecules share their gained heat with ones who are.
[QUOTE=Crumpet;51395564]very little will change because weve already put almost 400 billion tonnes of it into the atmosphere. come on dude. do you really think all these scientists are missing the point?[/QUOTE] They have in the past. So yes. Because why else would they always include the caveat that they "don't have enough data." Its a guess. They are guessing at what is causing climate change because the climate is a very vast system. With a whole lot of inputs. So I'll add to that promise, and remove human added CO2. Because you know humans are not the only contributors to CO2 in the atmosphere.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51395573]They have in the past. So yes. Because why else would they always include the caveat that they "don't have enough data." Its a guess. They are guessing at what is causing climate change because the climate is a very vast system. With a whole lot of inputs. So I'll add to that, and removed human added CO2. Because you know humans are not the only contributors to CO2 in the atmosphere.[/QUOTE] with a whole lot of inputs, yes. with the main blaring input being the one we are flooding it with. which also happens to be a greenhouse gas. which is a deeply scientifically backed concept.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51395548]Too many people find it easier to just believe what is fed to them rather than looking for actual empirical data. If you want to continue to believe that humanity is the sole or major cause of climate change, go for it. Its not my job to sit here and disprove it. But my point is still here that there is NO empirical data that definitively proves humanity's link to major or being the sole cause of climate change. It is all guess work.[/QUOTE] We fucking presented you with actual data and you turned it the fuck down what more do you want holy shit And please not this fucking "cows farting cause global warming shit ban the cows" bullshit again
[IMG]http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/images/gw/climate-influence-faq.PNG[/IMG] [quote]Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, absorbing and emitting infrared radiation at its two infrared-active vibrational frequencies (see Structure and bonding above). This process causes carbon dioxide to warm the surface and lower atmosphere, while cooling the upper atmosphere. The increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2, and thus in the CO2-induced greenhouse effect, is the reason for the rise in average global temperature since the mid-20th century. Although carbon dioxide is the greenhouse gas primarily responsible for the rise, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and various other long-lived greenhouse gases also contribute. Carbon dioxide is of greatest concern because it exerts a larger overall warming influence than all of those other gases combined, and because it has a long atmospheric lifetime.[/quote] [editline]19th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Recurracy;51395589]We fucking presented you with actual data and you turned it the fuck down what more do you want holy shit And please not this fucking "cows farting cause global warming shit ban the cows" bullshit again[/QUOTE] no no, let them use that argument because the only reason we have so many fucking cows in the first place is because of human actions
[QUOTE=Kigen;51395573]They have in the past. So yes. Because why else would they always include the caveat that they "don't have enough data." Its a guess. They are guessing at what is causing climate change because the climate is a very vast system. With a whole lot of inputs.[/QUOTE] 97% of climate scientists are in consensus of human-caused global warming. The greater of less the expertise of the scientists, the more or less consensus there is (respectively)
Well, that's pretty much true. If it weren't for us humans the distribution of the population of several species would be very different. That said, bovine animals farting wouldn't cause greenhouse gasses to rise alone. The amount of plants compared to co2 sources would still even itself out so that argument wouldn't hold up either. I still wonder how the hell we can convince you that climate change is a very real thing caused by humans when you decide that the data we show you isn't good enough for you. What else can we do? How in the hell do we convince you that we aren't dumb shills who like to be spoonfed doom and gloom lies from the mass-influencing corrupting media corporations? The same thing can easily be said about you in that case, but your source of information would be an alternative news media source like fucking Infowars! How can anyone in this day and age be sure about the validity of information when there is so much of it because the ease of putting up misinformation is too damn great? When you don't want to believe 'official sources', like scientific papers (and it's scientists' jobs to ensure that these papers are 100% correct, mind you!) but instead want to believe things John and Cleetus Hickory put up on the internet on their own amazing 90's-era website, what the fuck do we do then? I'm asking you directly why you seem like you don't want to trust scientific papers, graph and data for their validity. You already said you want peer reviewed papers but those have been posted if I'm not mistaken.
[QUOTE=Crumpet;51395594][IMG]http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/images/gw/climate-influence-faq.PNG[/IMG] [editline]19th November 2016[/editline] no no, let them use that argument because the only reason we have so many fucking cows in the first place is because of human actions[/QUOTE] What is up with the scale at the bottom claiming all the carbon dioxide release is human influenced? What about volcanoes and natural decomposing? Inaccuracies is why climate change denying scientists are a thing.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51394953]I don't see how they think this is going to work. Climate change will continue to occur regardless of whatever humanity as a whole does. Its part of the natural order of things that change happens. I'm all for minimizing pollution. But when this ends up being another crying "wolf" incident it will hamper the efforts to minimize pollution.[/QUOTE] climate change may happen but we have so drastically accelerated it through artificial means that its happening on a human time scale and further everything we are doing now will stick around for 10-100 thousand years. just getting the governmenr committed to combatting it here in the US sends a powerful signal to the rest of the world.
Seriously dude you have shares in coal and oil or something? Why are you so in denial of something that [I]the vast majority of scientists say is real[/I] and dismiss it [I]while having no expertise in the field yourself?[/I] At this point it's not even being ignorant, at least if that were the case seeing all these peer-reviewed publications would have changed your mind (since no, that can't be a fucking conspiracy on the scientists part, if a scientist were able to disprove something that is so widely agreed upon they would get insane recognition and grants), but it's not even that. You keep saying ~they actually have no idea~ because you misinterpret the fact that no scientific theory can be outright [I]proven[/I] as scientists having absolutely no idea what they're doing ever. There's no outright proof behind the theory of relativity or quantum mechanics, that doesn't stop us from using that theory in practice to create very complex and precise systems. You're [I]willfully[/I] ignorant and in denial, I don't know if that's because you have a horse in this race or if the idea of climate change impacting your survival is too much to bear, but you've got to pull your head out of your ass. If only deniers like you were the only ones to end up being culled by climate change. Sadly, that won't be the case and people who had no hand in this shit will likely be the first to fall victim to it. That makes you not only a moron, but also a huge asshole.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51395670]What is up with the scale at the bottom claiming all the carbon dioxide release is human influenced? What about volcanoes and natural decomposing? Inaccuracies is why climate change denying scientists are a thing.[/QUOTE] volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of co2 a year, around 1% of the human output, and natural co2 output from decomposition is generally reabsorbed by ocean stores, vegetation etc.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.