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 -  (4 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 -  (3 children)

OK, LOL!

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

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

[–]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.