I disagree.

"Is it so ridiculous that overwhelming evidence of humans impacting environment is true?"
No it's not ridiculous, I mean we solved the ozone hole and that was in essence the same issue as man-made climate change. So science does work more often than not.

I don't think we're upsetting the balance at all, I think it's just doing it's thing, as it's inclined to do. Unless you think we have weather machines, this shit was going to happen regardless.

We have solved the ozone hole, but we did not fix it.

It's still there

It's repairing SLOWLY

CFCs last from 40 years to thousands

It's absolutely tiny now.

What I mean is that we solved the problem, it's going to close probably around 2075

Chile still gets tendrils of ozone hole pass it.

Look a Chile's skin cancer

It used to cover most of Australia, now I think it's a little thing over the ocean.

My issue is that it has been demonstrated that academia has been severely compromised. It's not that I don't want to trust them, it's that I can't.

It would at this point be unscientific to put complete trust in them.

And yet that still doesn't discount the current consensus

I think the skin cancer thing is more likely to be caused by granite than anything else.

Yes it does actually, because that is the main point of contention that I have

Peer review is what demonstrates the consensus, but peer review is the area that is by far the most compromised part of academia.

The ozone hole is seasonal, it's not a constant.

It gets bigger and smaller seasonally

Considering they're using climate change as a means of establishing a dictatorship, to press x to doubt on their shit is perfectly fair. For fuck's sake, they're using children to get people to bend the knee.

Jesus

It's trying to get an emotional response instead of an intelligent one.

Stop with the fucking conspiracies

If they told us that they're in heavy talks with the biggest polluters, e.g. China, then I would trust our governments much more on climate change.

But instead they put the burden on the nations that contribute very little to the CO2 rise.

There's a difference between scientific consensus on impacts and what should be done to mitigate it and planet government control

And not just on the nations, but even the individuals that produce the least CO2.

Is it really a conspiracy to say that it's more than a bit fucked up to have a 16 year old with aspergers trying to tell you to 'stop polluting', but not bothering to try telling China or India?

Is it?

The biggest consumers are the middle classes of western counties, WHO DO YOU think China is producing products for?

And on top of all that, Germany is dismantling its nuclear plants, how does that make sense in regards to the CO2 issue? Shouldn't they be telling us that these plants are good for the environment?

"I think the skin cancer thing is more likely to be caused by granite than anything else."

That is so wrong it hurts

Consumers yes, but producers of pollution, no. If manufacturing was solely in the USA, they'd be the largest net contributor, but it'd still be way less than China's producing.

The radiation of granite is practically nothign

That's horse shit.

By the same rational, you should be able to produce studies correlating granite and skin cancer

https://www.epa.gov/radiation/granite-countertops-and-radiation

If the EPA felt the need to publish something about granite COUNTERTOPS, then clearly they're a hazard.

Especially if you have a shitload of it.