We’ve observed that the climate has changed for millions of years on this planet.
Yes, and scientist have a pretty good understanding why it has changed in the past. Just as now we understand the climate has changed because of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Can you guess why there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere now than before the industrial revolution?
The post Industrial Revolution is the teensiest-tiniest microscopic doesn’t-even-register slice of time on the scale of the entire time this planet has had a climate.
Yes. And still, in this tiny slice of a time, the climate has changed a significant amount.
Just look at how climate change is being used by politicians and leaders.
Why should I look at politicians on a science matter. That’s your problem. You should get your science from the scientist, not politicians.
The post Industrial Revolution is the teensiest-tiniest microscopic doesn’t-even-register slice of time on the scale of the entire time this planet has had a climate.
Then why does the start of the industrial revolution coincide with the exponential increase in Co2 concentration in the atmosphere? Do you think it just came from nothing?
Just because there’s a lot of politics doesn’t mean we didn’t cause it. Yes, the earth has cycles but this is being caused by greenhouse gasses and those gasses had to come from somewhere.
Just look at how climate change is being used by politicians and leaders. If you can’t see the absolute fear mongering scam for what it is, I can’t do anything for you. You literally must have wool pulled over your eyes.
This is an emotional appeal rather than a refutation of the facts. We can observe the increasing concentration of carbon in the atmosphere since we began burning fossil fuels. We know that burning fossil fuels releases carbon into the atmosphere. And right on cue, we have been getting year over year heat records almost every single year for the last two decades.
But your response is “well the climate has changed in the past due to other things,” and “I don’t like politicians.” Neither of which refute the objectively observable facts of the matter. They are simply thought-terminating cliches.
Be better. Don’t engage in emotional appeals and thought-terminating cliches. Don’t be anti-intellectual. And definitely don’t be the “I’m the only smart person in the room who can see the truth” guy.
Surely you have an alternative explanation? Something observable?
Removed by mod
Yes, and scientist have a pretty good understanding why it has changed in the past. Just as now we understand the climate has changed because of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Can you guess why there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere now than before the industrial revolution?
Yes. And still, in this tiny slice of a time, the climate has changed a significant amount.
Why should I look at politicians on a science matter. That’s your problem. You should get your science from the scientist, not politicians.
That last sentence chefs kiss
Then why does the start of the industrial revolution coincide with the exponential increase in Co2 concentration in the atmosphere? Do you think it just came from nothing?
Just because there’s a lot of politics doesn’t mean we didn’t cause it. Yes, the earth has cycles but this is being caused by greenhouse gasses and those gasses had to come from somewhere.
This is an emotional appeal rather than a refutation of the facts. We can observe the increasing concentration of carbon in the atmosphere since we began burning fossil fuels. We know that burning fossil fuels releases carbon into the atmosphere. And right on cue, we have been getting year over year heat records almost every single year for the last two decades.
But your response is “well the climate has changed in the past due to other things,” and “I don’t like politicians.” Neither of which refute the objectively observable facts of the matter. They are simply thought-terminating cliches.
Be better. Don’t engage in emotional appeals and thought-terminating cliches. Don’t be anti-intellectual. And definitely don’t be the “I’m the only smart person in the room who can see the truth” guy.
What kind of reductive argument is that? Someone you don’t like has a point so it must be false?
Removed by mod
You’re loudy ignorant. Why fight about something you don’t understand?