Message from @shinsoo
Discord ID: 506463988004159488
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)
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
And the involvement of scientific theory in policy and politics is something that should always be under the highest scrutiny, because if the science should be held under scrutiny and scepticism, all the more that a politician should be since a politician is not held strictly by the scientific agenda
You see that happening to gender. How would you like it if it is impossible to argue it since it is "undeniable".
does the left even try to make themselves look good anymore
finally
Gab has added to their original statement. The one you get when you go to the website. Read it here https://gab.ai/Sunless_Sentinel