The Liberals' War on Science

Amadeus said:
No, I'm sorry, I don't. If your goal is to obfuscate the issue and throw shade on the truth, you're only fooling yourself.
Click to expand...

Being able to prove your assertion shouldn't be a difficult concept to understand but if it is then that says a lot about you.
 
Guille said:
Being able to prove your assertion shouldn't be a difficult concept to understand but if it is then that says a lot about you.
Click to expand...

2017EarthDay_TempAndCO2_en_title_lg.jpg
 
Amadeus said:
We can't prove gravity. We can't prove evolution. The consensus involves agreement on the available science.

We're getting pretty close to truth simply not existing at all. What a fucked up viewpoint.
Click to expand...

I remember when the scientific method involved standards higher than just "available".......
 
Amadeus said:
Seems to me that you simply have a fact-repelling barrier. If you don't believe the science, climatologist experts, or the charts which show a CO2/Temperature correlation, exactly what proof are you looking for?
Click to expand...

Let's get back to the point of the OP...politics distorts science. What you just did is a perfect example of that.

You posted a graph with an ominous looking curve. Two problems with that though:

1) Your graph doesn't prove causation.
2) Your graph covers a period of just shy of 140 years. 290ppm to 403ppm looks like a huge increase on that graph but when charted as part of the entire known history of CO2 levels it wouldn't be that large of a curve, in fact that time period would be very short and very low compared to much of our planet's history and pretty flat too.

You just did what the OP complained about.
 
Guille said:
Your graph covers a period of just shy of 140 years.
Click to expand...

Seems to me that that would be the span of time to examine when looking at man-made carbon emissions.

You just did what the OP complained about.
Click to expand...

Examining the relevant data is what science does. I'm sure I'd make a crappy scientist, but at least I'd be following the scientific method. While you're wearing a beanie with a propeller and spinning around in circles.
 
Amadeus said:
2017EarthDay_TempAndCO2_en_title_lg.jpg
Click to expand...

what do the ice core samples going back 450K years say?.......that what we are going through has happened three times before and this isn't even the hottest its ever been.......man obviously didn't cause it 450k years ago or 300k years ago or 150k years ago......
 
Amadeus said:
Seems to me that that would be the span of time to examine when looking at man-made carbon emissions.



Examining the relevant data is what science does. I'm sure I'd make a crappy scientist, but at least I'd be following the scientific method. While you're wearing a beanie with a propeller and spinning around in circles.
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell you know nothing of the scientific method. All you've done is engage in circular reasoning. Your graph is a perfect example of this. CO2 in the atmosphere has climbed from ~290ppm to 403ppm...and that 403 is questionable btw...your graph doesn't prove causation at all yet you tried to use it to show causation. There's nothing scientific at all about what you've done.
 
Amadeus said:
Seems to me that that would be the span of time to examine when looking at man-made carbon emissions.
Click to expand...

just the opposite.....no control period.......compare it to a period when there were NO man-made carbon emissions, such as 450k years ago, 300k years ago and 150k years ago and you find the exact same thing.........what does that tell you about the impact of man made carbon emissions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top