@shinsoo why that prevents you taking them seriously?
not even one study/predition were right.

don't bother, i already can't take you any less seriously

http://www.climate4you.com/

at least you can take real data seriously

What's wrong with being a skeptic? That doesnt mean you're ignoring facts, it just means you're not convinced by the only data we have. We are looking at data from a tiny snapshot of time compared to Earth's existence, and have no way of knowing if this is part of a natural cycle of warming and cooling that Earth would be undergoing even if our input wasn't a factor

Being skeptical of the presuppositions that most climate change advocates push isnt that radical

<:dadrock:332397884463120384>

Being closed minded isn't very scientific, nor is making presumptions. Being sceptical is a scientific approach, since it opens us up to continually questioning our assumptions, and running further tests and analyses.

@shinsoo at least read basics first.
like logarithmic dependence of temperature on CO2 levels and El Niño

yeah, nah
i'm not engaging conspiracy theorists

Theres nothing in what I said that's even remotely conspiratorial

every scientist acnowlendges those affects...🤦🏻

you're fine, i'm referring to Jasse

being uncertain about it because you're aware of not knowing enough, that's great
being skeptical of proposed solutions/responses, that's great
being skeptical of proven scientific consensus is suspicious af, and a likely sign of either conspiracy nonsense (Jasse) or paid propaganda (Prager)

https://youtu.be/D99qI42KGB0

what conspiracys i have said so far?
i just gave bunch of really basic data

My point is that things can only be taken out of scientific scepticism when they are literally scientific fact, and climate change is something that we simply dont have enough data on to understand what is going on and therefore as a science will always need to be under scientific scepticism

this video addresses what you said, i think, Brakey
how climate advocacy has been coopted by radicals on the left

and how climate denial has become a right-wing staple

sorry, bad connection

Treating these things as fact is unscientific, since we cannot run an experiment multiple times, pumping CO2 into the Earths atmosphere and observing what happens

climate is changing, and aways will. but debate is over how much of it man made.

we absolutely have enough data on climate change
geologists can gather data on climate throughout Earth's history

Until theres a method to know exactly how many ppm of CO2 was in the atmosphere at all points in Earths history we will never know, and that is impossible

and how accurate that data is?
and we are talking global temeratures not just one spot.

recent data has 0.5C error margin.
And we are speaking 1.5C change....

and old data is unrelaiable as hell.
we have only new satelite data that we can actually use

<:NotLikeThis:313332634153517067>

explain why do you belive in man made climate change. when clearly you havent looked up even most basic data?

I'll just put it out there and say I refuse to 'believe' anything that cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny of experimentation and repetition under the specific parameters required. I'm a sceptic on evolutionary theory simply because it's impossible to repeat. Many scientific theories are based on assumptions and require belief, simply because due to the nature of their scale they cannot be tested repeatably.

fair enough, Brakey
that kind of hardcore skepticism is impractical, but at least consistent

it's true that most scientific Theories which are consensus nowadays are based on belief to some degree

Men thought the world was flat until the technology appeared to circumnavigate the globe

nah, ppl already calculated its radius way before that

greek philosophers knew it was round

It was a figure of speech

😃

:P

There are few things that should be considered as fact, very few, and one of them is the ability for water to boil at 100degrees c under standard atmospheric temperatures and pressures

that's by definition though, not very amazing

Well, yes. Theory always has its purpose, but I have a great deal of problem when scientific theory is stated as undeniable fact. It stifles scientific understanding. Since the theory of evolution has become so widely taught as fact, there has been no advancement in that line of theoretical thinking that doesn't use Darwin as a jumping point