I should be able to advocate my ideology.

submitted by [deleted] from self.whatever

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]FediNetizen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

No, it sounds like I actually got pretty close. Finding out Gore was a liar was part of your reasoning, I just wrongly guessed which particular lie. But Gore's lies don't invalidate the field of climate science.

Calling people deniers and clowns doesn't win you anything. It just shows how biased, closed minded, and unwilling to understand you are

First off, if you believe that the Nazis didn't imprison and kill several million "undesirables" (mostly jews) during WW2, then "denier" is a perfectly accurate description. Similarly, if you think that climate science doesn't support the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming, then calling you an AGW denier is also perfectly accurate. You could call me a flat earth denier because I reject the theory that the earth is essentially a plane. There's no prejudice there.

Clown is a pejorative, and it's one that I use to characterize all science deniers, because it goes even beyond the level of denial where you're denying history. I'll mock a bluecheck on Twitter claiming that there's no evidence that trans women have an advantage in sports in exactly the same way. If you're telling me that you believe there is no real evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and particularly if you're telling me that you came to this conclusion after "doing your research", you deserve to be mocked.

This shit isn't like abortion where you can make a good argument for both sides. There is a correct answer to the question of "Is CO2 a greenhouse gas?", and similiarly "Are CO2 levels increasing primarily because of the widespread burning of wood and use of fossil fuels?". The answer to both is "Yes.", and the science isn't ambiguous.

[–]fred_red_beans 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

CO2 is a green house gas.

CO2 levels are increasing.

This is not in of itself evidence that CO2 and greenhouse gasses are the major drivers of climate change.

Your science denier rhetoric is just ad hominem. Just because an individual doesn't believe a hypothesis does not make them anti-science. Isn't it a tenet of science to be able to consider other hypotheses?

It does not appear to me that the influence of the sun is being fully taken into account:

CLIMATE FORCING | Our Future is Cold - Suspicious0bservers

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

Just because an individual doesn't believe a hypothesis does not make them anti-science. Isn't it a tenet of science to be able to consider other hypotheses?

Yes, but if you reject a well-supported theory in favor of something which has no scientific merit for religious or political reasons, you are a science denier.

An obvious example would be religious people that reject the theory that the earth is billions of years old in favor of the theory that it's 10,000 years old, because that's what's implied in the bible. Or people that reject the theory that humanity is the result of a gradual process of evolution in favor of the theory that humans were created all at once and we're all descended from two people that existed less than 10,000 years ago and evolution is fake but also it isn't because you need evolution to explain different races and also different animal species because 2 of every species couldn't fit on a boat of any size that you could built out of wood and so on.

CO2 is a green house gas.

CO2 levels are increasing.

This is not in of itself evidence that CO2 and greenhouse gasses are the major drivers of climate change.

See this last quoted line is your first "I'm only pretending to understand how all of this works" fuckup. The composition of the atmosphere is what drives climate change. If you have even a basic understanding of what the greenhouse effect actually is, and accept that it is real, then the assertion that the composition of the atmosphere is what drives climate change is self-evidently true.

It does not appear to me that the influence of the sun is being fully taken into account

And this is your 2nd, and bigger, fuckup. Did you assert the the 11-year solar cycle wasn't being taken into account? You did not. Did you assert that the fewer observed sunspots that correlate with the Maunder Minimum imply that the sun's output fluctuates? You did not. Did you make any actual assertions about how the sun's output has changed over the period where we've observed rising temperatures that would even begin to explain why we're seeing rising temperatures? You did not.

Instead, you just made a hand-wavy statement AND LINKED TO A FUCKING HOUR LONG YOUTUBE VIDEO. I couldn't even tell you how many AGW "skeptics" have pulled basically the same shit. It's almost as obnoxious as when flat-earthers link me to that "200 proofs the earth is flat" video.

[–]fred_red_beans 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

OK, LOL!

[–]FediNetizen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Can't defend yourself, so you just duck out. Typical.

[–]JasonCarswellMental Orgy 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

You are a time suck and I won't waste it on you.

I also suspect you may be a shill as you are far too active, dogmatic, stuck in your views, and driven with whatever your agenda is. Most normal people are reasonable, will admit when they're wrong, and don't argue ad nauseam.

[–]fred_red_beans 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You act like an ass and you want me to spell out climate science for you in a post?

I gave you what I feel is a good reference. It is an hour long video. If you don't want to look at it, don't.

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

Of all the climate "skeptic" arguments, that the change we're experiencing has anything to do with the sun is perhaps the easiest and most straightforward to debunk. That's why I called you a tard. I'm not asking you to spell anything out, because you have no real knowledge to offer anyways.