"Research"

submitted by FediNetizen from (i.imgur.com)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]FediNetizen[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

I can't stand Thunberg or the people that prop her up, but you're not going to be called an anti-science nut for not "being on Thunberg's level". You're going to be called an anti-science nut for claiming that either 1) the earth isn't getting warmer, or 2) that human emissions aren't the primary cause, or 3) that this won't eventually lead to disastrous consequences. Or some variant of 1-3, all of which are well-established at this point.

[–]madcow-5 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

if you claim the earth isn't getting warmer

Which almost nobody does. But the entire left larps as though conservatives all say this.

or that human emissions aren't the primary cause,

Now we've just made a tremendous leap. Last I checked the jury was still out. While I personally think human activity is a driving factor, we've crossed the line of if you disagree with my claim that's disputed within the scientific community, "you're anti SCIENCE!".

or that this won't eventually lead to disastrous consequences.

Define disastrous. And again, what's this have to do with science? This is layman's conjecture and subjective. We've entered the realm of politics being labeled "SCIENCE!".

[–]FediNetizen[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

You've disproved your own point. You're not being called anti-science for "not being on Thunberg's level", you're being called anti-science because in 2020 you're claiming the source of the warming is still ambiguous, denying the entire AGW theory in the process. Unless the last time you checked was in the 1980s, the jury definitely wasn't out on that, and your position is being called "anti-science" quite fairly.

[–]madcow-5 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (17 children)

okay...... This here..... Is not... science.

This is believing what someone wearing a suit on the television says. This is nothing to do with science.

[–]FediNetizen[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

No, none of this involves some shit from a talking head on TV.

1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas

2) When you combust fossil fuels, CO2 is created

3) CO2 levels have increased massively since the beginning of the industrial era

4) The primary source of this new CO2 is combustion of fossil fuels and clearing of forests

Tell me which of these points you think isn't well-established by science.

[–]madcow-5 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (14 children)

You’ve never read a study in your life.

You believe these things because someone on the tv told you to.

That’s not science. That’s faith in perceived authority.

[–]FediNetizen[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

You see /u/ReeferMadness, this is what an actual ad hominem looks like. Notice how he never addresses the argument, and just calls me a dum-dum instead.

To address your assertion directly, you are wrong on all counts. I've read many papers, including some bad ones. One of my favorite bad papers is authored by Richard Lindzen, who tried to argue that just because the overwhelming majority of climatologists believe that the warming trend is both real and human-caused, that doesn't mean that there is a consensus on the matter. By that same logic, the existence of Kurt Wise means there isn't a consensus among paleontologists that dinosaur fossils are tens of millions of years old. Why do I bring it up? Because Richard Lindzen is a climate "skeptic" (who just happens to get paid millions by oil companies to give talks around the world promoting AGW "skepticism"), and over the years he has made plenty of bad arguments just like this one.

You want an example of another bad argument AGW "skeptics" make? You probably won't believe this, but just recently I had some idiot tell me I've never read a study in my life in response to being presented with extremely basic assertions about the theory of AGW and being asked which of those assertions he believes isn't supported by science.

[–]madcow-5 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

What argument?

How about you address mine?

Instead you’re calling for backup like a massive faggot.

Also, there’s no ad hominem in my comment.

[–]FediNetizen[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Instead you’re calling for backup like a massive faggot.

No, I told reefer he doesn't understand what an ad hominem was in a different comment thread. I'm tagging him in this one to show him what that actually looks like, not asking him for input. And yes, your comment is an ad hominem. You called me a sheep and didn't address the actual argument. Read my fucking comment before responding next time, and stop to think about what you're actually saying.

[–]madcow-5 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

I laid out my point. Are you still not understanding this? It’s not an ad hominem.

[–]Airbus320 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Co2 is just harmless plant air, plants love it