See, here inlies your need to understand how this even works. If you can demonstrate, with working models, that you have a valid dissent, then it will be taken seriously. If you repeatedly use models that cannot be confirmed, fake your numbers, and in general prove yourself to have a political agenda to dissent rather than a valid concern, then yes, your word becomes dirt.
2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"
1. We know more energy is remaining in the atmosphere despite energy coming in from the sun staying the same
2. We know that greenhouse gasses are the mechanism causing it.
3. We know that CO2, a major greenhouse gass, in the atmosphere has increased by nearly 50% in the last 150 year.
4. We know that the increase in CO2 is from burning fossil fuels.
5. We know that the energy trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelengths of energy captured by CO2.
You can go on about semantics and keep committing the fallacy fallacy, but which one of those 5 points do you believe is wrong?
Only thing that is factual.. is that, wherever the pendulum swings, there's a lot of money involved towards that side.
If human activities are causing an increase in temperatures, that's actually a very, very big deal. Especially if such an increase is rapid. Sea level rise, stronger storms, out of sync pollination, floods and droughts, a decrease in fresh water supplies, increases in the spread of disease, changes in ecosystems.
How exactly do these potential outcomes place "fluctuations in temperature" at the bottom of the list?
Last edited by TZucchini; 2016-04-14 at 04:37 PM.
Eat yo vegetables
Are you fucking serious? They provide zero scientific evidence that counters the claim that Climate Change is happening. You can stop with the SJW bullshit too. This has nothing to do with social justice. It has everything to do with destroying our planet by deforestation and pollution.
- - - Updated - - -
But of course you will listen to Trump if he posted some bullshit from the 3% in his twitter feed right? Do you know those 3% that are denying it, are people being paid to deny it right? By the oil companies.
“You know, it really doesn’t matter what the media write as long as you’ve got a young, and beautiful, piece of ass." - President Donald Trump
arent they smart...a whole study to figure it out.
the other 3% must think its the fault of whatever little flora and fauna left in the world that has yet to go extinct thanks to humans.
oh wait.....
There are two related, important concepts, here. "Confidence", and "uncertainty". When talking about future projections, "confidence" is a measure of how likely that projection will include the actual outcomes, and "certainty" is how much variance within that projection exists.
To simplify, imagine predicting the outcomes of a coin toss . we have a very high confidence that the outcome will be either heads or tails, but a low certainty that it might be heads, in particular. That uncertainty does not mean there's low confidence in the overall projection.
The projections for 2100, in climate change, have low certainty but high confidence; we know the warming will continue, but we have 85 years of human history and potential natural cataclysms (major volcanic events, etc.) that will probably deviate from current trends over time . that affects certainty, not confidence.
Better kill all animals too, not just cows. The methane they release is just too much for the poor atmosphere to handle. I say we just nuke this whole planet from orbit. It's the only way to be sure
So how much longer do we have to wait for light bulbs that put out the same quality, glow, and brightness of a 100W incandescent bulb, when are we going to get Cristmas lights again that when you light up your tree produce a warm glow throughout the living room instead of bright pencil point lights that dont radiate light.
How much longer do we have to wait for dishwashing detergent that cleans dishes as well as the detergents that had sulfates in them?
How much longer do we have to wait for air conditioners that can cool your car down to 60 degrees on a 100 degree day like the FREON ones did?
How much longer are we going to have to wait for shower heads with enough water pressure to actually wash the shampoo out of your hair without taking 20 minutes?
How much longer are we going to have to wait for shower gels that scrub dead skin cells off as fast as microbeads do?
How much longer do we have to wait to be able to go to a store and not have to drag a cartful of our own bags into the store?
How much longer do we have to wait for "green" cars to catch up and provide the same performance as gasoline cars (charge from empty to full in less than 3 minutes) (same top speeds, HP, big size)
How much longer do we have to wait for a toilet that you can actually flush your shit down again
Well, some people think that science works like democracy: if the majority agrees on something, then it is hard truth that is not up to debate.
What support of those statements do you need? Should I link the definitions of a few logical fallacies to you or what? I'm not sure you even bothered to try to understand my point.