2 ms·

> I said that this is scientific concensus. Your consensus has been disputed elsewhere. > denial of antropogenic climate change has about as much standing as

> I said that this is scientific concensus. Your consensus has been disputed elsewhere. > denial of antropogenic climate change has about as much standing as a flat-earther I strong, but ill-fated tactic. It's plainly obvious that the bulk of climate change has nothing to do with humans. > It doesn't really look like that, to me. Because all of your points are either irrelevant or disproven Right, because you disagree with them, they must be untrue. > How are any of those two things relevant to antrophogenic climate change? Based on your own statements that the temperature increase is 'massive' and 'unprecedented' it should be plainly obvious to you that there are mechanisms other than human which increase the global temperature. I realize you're not willing to consider all data available, climate change proponents never are. > Yeah, this is an old one too; https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2910/what-is-the-suns-role-in-.. https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2910/what-is-the-suns-role-in-.... So convenient where the graph ends there.... so convenient. It's almost like there was a cool period right before hand, which would show rising temperatures over a longer period.

esarbe 7y ago
> Your consensus has been disputed elsewhere. That's fine. Not every one and last climate scientist has to agree to this consensus. It's enough that the vast, overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree. > It's plainly obvious that the bulk of climate change has nothing to do with humans. If we're talking about the climate change that's been happening in the last 150 years, that's not what the scientific consensus is. Going back even further it becomes more obvious that humans have a massive impact on climate and weather. Did you know that the whole southern Mediterianian coast used to be woodland? > Right, because you disagree with them, they must be untrue. No, they are untrue because they are not supported by facts. They are irrelevant because they don't provide information to explore the topic. I don't have problem changing my conclusions when new relevant data are provided that would necessitate that. But your points are all either disproven or irrelevant. > So convenient where the graph ends there. [...] What data would you convince you otherwise? See, that's what I mean. You give me some hand-wavy arguments why climate change is not related to CO2 or why the sun is the culprit or whatever else. Even if I refute your points, you just give more vague excuses without actually entering into a discussion about the points provided. To me this feels intellectually dishonest.

esarbe 7y ago

> Your consensus has been disputed elsewhere. That's fine. Not every one and last climate scientist has to agree to this consensus. It's enough that the vast, overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree. > It's plainly obvious that the bulk of climate change has nothing to do with humans. If we're talking about the climate change that's been happening in the last 150 years, that's not what the scientific consensus is. Going back even further it becomes more obvious that humans have a massive impact on climate and weather. Did you know that the whole southern Mediterianian coast used to be woodland? > Right, because you disagree with them, they must be untrue. No, they are untrue because they are not supported by facts. They are irrelevant because they don't provide information to explore the topic. I don't have problem changing my conclusions when new relevant data are provided that would necessitate that. But your points are all either disproven or irrelevant. > So convenient where the graph ends there. [...] What data would you convince you otherwise? See, that's what I mean. You give me some hand-wavy arguments why climate change is not related to CO2 or why the sun is the culprit or whatever else. Even if I refute your points, you just give more vague excuses without actually entering into a discussion about the points provided. To me this feels intellectually dishonest.