4 ms·
Wow. Just to be clear, I'm not putting the burden of proof on you. I accept that the burden is on the side arguing that anthropogenic climate change is real. I
by ryanwaggoner 7y ago
Wow. Just to be clear, I'm not putting the burden of proof on you. I accept that the burden is on the side arguing that anthropogenic climate change is real.
I'm simply asking you what standard of proof you would require. What would convince you?
EDIT: for anyone else wondering about the "0.04%" factoid thrown out, this article is a pretty good explanation of how the greenhouse effect works and how a trace gas can have a noticeable affect on global temperature: https://www.sciencealert.com/co2-is-only-a-tiny-part-of-our-atmosphere-but-it-has-a-huge-influence-here-s-why https://www.sciencealert.com/co2-is-only-a-tiny-part-of-our-...
- scarygliders 7y agoYes, let's hear the real story about CO2 shall we? https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/01/a-story-of-co2-data-manipulation/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/01/a-story-of-co2-data-m...
- ryanwaggoner 7y agoSigh...why is it so hard for you to answer this question? In a world where you are convinced by the evidence that anthropogenic climate change is real and poses a grave threat to humanity over the next century, what does that evidence look like? I'm not remotely qualified to read your long article and try and either debunk it or determine that yes, it does indeed have real scientific merit despite its disagreement with the overwhelming consensus by experts in the relevant fields. Nor do I particularly feel the need to. I lump anthropogenic climate change in with evolution: I don't have the expertise to evaluate the evidence myself but it seems like virtually everyone who does is on one side of the argument. That's good enough for me.
- stephenitis 7y agoAnswer the question maybe? What would it take to convince you?