You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Climate Change
SG, you're talking about birthers, truthers are the 9/11 crazies, but both are on the same level.
But climate change deniers are worse. Truthers and birthers don't have to ignore tons and tons of science in order to believe their bullcrap stories, they "simply" have to not believe the government (ignoring that there's no credible motive nor is it fathomable how so many people could be in on the respective conspiracies). Climate change deniers have to argue against the sort of basic statistics even a high schooler can put together.
Re: Climate Change
"Scientific facts" change all the time. Go watch John Oliver's scientific studies segment on YouTube. He seems to be pretty liberal, so maybe you can get some insight into how those studies really go.
No, you need to prove how THIS theory is bunk, not raise some vague points about how scientific studies aren't always perfect. Again, the support for man made climate change is due to the VAST amount of studies that all come to the same conclusion.
Also, yes, I do follow Last Week Tonight. I particularly like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXGcGX4YY9M
Re: Climate Change
Hilarious. No. Science has to prove that this is all man made as they claim. The thing is they can't because climate change happened long before man. So they can guess, but they don't know. They have a reasonable guess as to what is going on, but that's all it is.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Climate Change
Hilarious. No. Science has to prove that this is all man made as they claim. The thing is they can't because climate change happened long before man. So they can guess, but they don't know. They have a reasonable guess as to what is going on, but that's all it is.
Exactly. Some posters are trying to claim scientific consensus, but there's not any of that. You have hundreds of studies all coming to different conclusions and predictions. All based on different, faulty models. That was my original point that some how got turned into a thread.
If everyone is coming to a similar conclusion (the earth is becoming warmer due to human activity), yet the evidence and predictions of each study are different, you can't claim consensus. This isn't how science works.
If all of us are given a math problem and try to solve it a different way, just because the outcome we all get is above a million, doesn't mean that we're all correct even though none of us agree on the exact figure.
Show me a study that accurately predicted climate change's affect on the world. 8 years ago we were told the Arctic would melt and new shipping routes would happen. We were told the polar bears would be all but extinct. None of that happened. None of their predictions on sea ice have proven true.
So I say again, if you are a man made climate change advocate, what study did you read that sold you? Saying 97% of scientist agree is meaningless when the majority of them aren't from a discipline related to climate change (how is a sociologist qualified to speak on climate change) and you can't find 97% of scientist that agree on one study.
