Originally Posted by
foxtrot
I've got some source for you:
Fact, greenhouse gasses account for less than 2% of the global climate model, which has not changed. It was the same when I was in school, when you were in school, but it isn't curriculum anymore, because it conflicts with the religion of carbon-cause climate change according to the profit (oop, sorry, prophet) with financial motives, al-gore, and those like him. Data on the other 98% of the climate model isn't even historically available.
Fact, of that 2%, carbon dioxide is a minority contributor. METHANE is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide is. If you believe CO2 is causing "climate change", then PETA is correct and its actually cows causing it.
Fact: We have less than 40 years of global data that can be considered scientifically accurate, but "climate change" scientists make broad statements on how things have been, or how they will be, based on less than four decades of evidence. This is akin to seeing a single frame of a movie, one sixtieth of a second, and telling everybody what the plot is going to be, and how it ends.
Fact: It's scientifically impossible to determine actual temperature prior to phsyical measurement and recording. All that is possible is "guessing", with HUGE margins of error. Find the 10,000 year temperature graphs that you so diligently base your faith in your religion in. Notice they say accuracy to (1/10th of a degree) or some other load of horse crap. Now, look at scientific charts from other points of view, and notice they have as much as 10 degrees of variation, but show the general peaks and lands and still claim 1/10th of a degree of accuracy. Guess what, both are bullshit. Through all means, they are LUCKY, and I mean LUCKY, if they get a margin of error that's 5-10 degrees. Yet their entire "cooling" and "warming" trends are by the tenth of the degree. Can you not smell the bullshit? And no, I don't mean cavemen didn't have thermometers. I mean the vibration of atoms leaves no record. All they have to go on is barometric pressures in bubbles, size of tree rings, etc. Do you honestly think you can guess the temperature to a tenth of a degree by looking at a flipping tree ring? So, each side (pro global warming, anti global warming) looks at the same set of data, and "interprets" it to the extreme ends of the margin of error to prove a point... they call it valid because its "inside the margin of error" but it is not science. It's perception.
But, I do believe in the free expression of religion, so carry on. Don't try to pretend its anything more than blind faith in a "theory", because the real evidence doesn't exist (and it doesn't exist either way).
And don't call for evidence disproving it as there is no evidence proving it in the first place. The burden of proof rests on the theory, not the status quo. I could make up a theory that three legged aliens live in the core of the earth, are you supposed to believe it with blind faith just cause I said so? Or should I have to prove it before its made into curriculum in the K-12 educational system.
Last fact: Carbon caused "climate change" is an invented assumption that has its roots mostly driven by politics, it demonizes the things that certain people want to be demonized; also people that tend to already dislike those things (factories, oil, etc.) will tend to believe it just for that fact. Instant followers of a religion.
Oh and ETA: Don't make any assumptions as to my bias with things. I actually KNOW a way to get us off oil dependance, but I don't think I'll ever see it in my lifetime, despite how much I'd like to see it realized. The difference is, I want it because its politically and economically beneficial. How would you like to drive across country for $20-$40 instead of $1500 and not have to worry about international issues? This is called intelligence.
Doing something because "herpa derp I'm reducin' emissions" is just peons of a religion.
Reply With Quote
