Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaanka
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
you're being outright dismissive of ideas which differ from your personally held beliefs on topics you have little more than a sophomoric understanding of. you literally posted two graphs in the same post that conflicted each other to "support" your argument. it's pretty clear you both simultaneously have little grasp of understanding of what you're talking about, nor have you given alternative theories ample consideration.
thing is, your points don't mean much if they can't stand up to scrutiny. but rather than question the strength of your own ideals, you demonize anything differing from your views as "religious" and this unscientific. it's ignorant and anti-intelligent.
care to explain the rapid climate shifts observed post-ice age? how does that evidence fit into your view of environmental gradualism, the theory in which the models you are posting are based on?
|
Neither you or i or anyone here have the authority or the knowledge to demonstrate anything
like i already said earlier in this thread, the difference between me and someone like daywolf is i believe the 97% of climate scientists all over the world have the authority to answer the matter. The only thing he provided to counter that is "no you're wrong" and a link to a libertarian think tank (which is not a scientific institution) article that has ties to oil companies and has already said that "tobacco is not dangerous for your health"
Science is not about beliefs or ideas. it's about facts. And again, having a PhD in history doesn't make you an authority on climate change. It just makes you an authority in history.
And yes, again, the tactics used by climate change denialist are the same used by people promoting "teach the controversy", or the flat earthers, or the people thinking that usa never went to the moon, or that jet fuels don't melt steel beams..
Another level of batshit-insane is saying that it's a hoax from china to weaken the usa.. china is probably the 2nd biggest polluter in the world (might be 1st now), they would suffer greatly from any kind of regulation like the kyoto protocol. But who cares about facts and logic.