You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Why Climate change is a hoax
There's no scope for disagreement. If you can't accept scientific consensus, you have to learn how to clear your mental blocks and do so. I don't make any claim, but please see here, like I linked above - https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
PS: If, however, you have made a groundbreaking discovery that will reverse scientific consensus, please do publish your findings. The world will stand corrected when you win the Nobel Prize.
no, I have participated in many different scientific discussions and it should be recommended to not accept the scientific consensus to truly form an opinion. It is what people in the science community call "critical thinking".
Your link contains a list of institutions saying "Climate change is a problem" on a side not you often see "human activities" or similar formulations, that means in actual language that they dont believe C02 is the main cause.
You did not present any scientific argument against my post, you presented scientific opinions. I can discuss those, but I need a few pages for that and I will do so as post. I will note you when its done (expect sunday)
Wow, you exhibit a startling dose of confirmation bias. It almost seems like you're reading a different page :)
Like I said above, if you have made a groundbreaking discovery that will reverse scientific consensus of anthropogenic climate change, please tag me. I will then stand corrected when you win the Nobel Prize, as a discovery of this magnitude would merit. Otherwise, don't bother notifying me. All the best with your propaganda!
Scientific consensus from a bunch of scientists all being paid by the same elites - you are kidding aren't you @liberosist.
In the 70s it was 'global cooling', by the 90s it was global warming, now it is 'climate change'. This same elitist dogma was being forced onto the working man back in the 1920s and 30s.
It is all bullshit. You have been brainwashed. Wake-up.
SirKnight.
As a matter of fact, climate scientists are working in over 200 countries, from completely different walks of lives. These countries are at odds with each other, but all of them converge on this very urgent matter. Except the USA and Syria, anyway. Hardly "the same elites", either way. Unless you mean the entire world is running a global conspiracy. At which point, I'd suggest you are the conspiracy - Occam's razor.
None of the conjectures you mentioned ever formed consensus, or even close to it.
All you need to know is that 'Climate Change' is **"BIG GOVERNMENT", ** and "BIG GOVERNMENT" is well connected. Again don't get me wrong - I am all for cleaner air, lower carbon emissions and lower toxins and pollutants. This is common sense. I just don't want BIG GOVERNMENT and their cronies to be getting rich off it. SK.
No one's talking about government, we are talking about climate scientists from various walks of life. Some may work for government organizations, some work for companies, while others are independent researchers. One thing is for sure, there's unanimous consensus between them that anthropogenic global warming is real and happening right now. See past your hatred of "big government" and you'll realize the same. That's all I can say, I urge you to see the evidence and accept it. All the best!
now, I feel like bringing the bouncer to the party, pls be civil with those guys. It is my comment sections after all.
Remember 0.003 value in my vote and counting >:D
Very good TGD haha - start spreading that wealth then would you mate.
All mine! fudge you, you fudging commi! xD
If I was a fudging commi I would have legislated that you give me 0.003 for simply being here, you flipping fascist.
Thanks, mate! I mean calling it propaganda is a little hypocritical if you link nasa government sources, especially when I say that those people peddling it too hard raised my concerns in the first place.
I actually really appreciate you disagreeing with me. Its more fun to write a text that has to convince someone. One Nobel Prize is too common folks for me, can you win two categories in the same year?
If you have a great distrust of government organizations, I'd link you to this meta-analysis instead - http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Occam's razor - "Peddling too hard" because it's a bonafide existential threat to the human species. Climate scientists from around the world in various walks of life have overwhelming data have formed decisive consensus on this matter.
Like I said, this is not a matter of disagreement. You don't provide anything to disagree with. Your data in this post is solid, it's simply a matter of you misunderstanding two different phenomena.
the problem about the article you linked: it shows data of the consensus. It does not explain how this consensus was reached.
My main reason for not trusting scientists and specifically the ones you linked when they are making prognoses:
The first sentences reads:
As an experienced reader of numbers I see two things in that statement:
The article I just wrote on the topic.
https://steemit.com/politics/@thatgermandude/my-data-is-better-than-yours-1-climate-change-data-1-the-beginning
Im sorry for getting a little hostile. I would appreciate if you look into the method i chose to approach the problem in my new article.
BURN
97%, one of those magic numbers that indicate a lot of crap is about to spew forth.