Climate Change For Dummies
have no fear, fox news won't respond to actual arguments against their mock 'journalism'...call them out all day...they only address drama, not facts.
I know what you guys are thinking: "msnbc is SO biased compared to fox news!"
check out my other channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/c0ctalk
and my site/forum http://www.c0ct0pus.com
you can also get your c0ct0 gear at one of my 3 stores:
http://www.cafepress.com/c0ct0pus
http://www.cafepress.com/c0ct0pus2
http://www.cafepress.com/c0ct0pus3
I know what you guys are thinking: "msnbc is SO biased compared to fox news!"
check out my other channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/c0ctalk
and my site/forum http://www.c0ct0pus.com
you can also get your c0ct0 gear at one of my 3 stores:
http://www.cafepress.com/c0ct0pus
http://www.cafepress.com/c0ct0pus2
http://www.cafepress.com/c0ct0pus3
I already do rely on my govt. for healthcare. I live in Norway. The system works pretty well from where I'm sitting, and not only with regard to healthcare. Education is virtually free as well. That is until I get my job and pay my own taxes for the next generation of students, obviously.
To be clear, I don't think that a privatized healthcare system CAN'T work. It just looks like the one in America is pretty fucked up right now. Needs fixing one way or another.
Creatards also use the "evolution is just a different religion lolz" argument to try to bolster their viewpoint. Like you just did with climate scientists and those who accept their findings.
To a climate change denier the term "falsifiable hypothesis" is unheard of, it seems. Meanwhile almost the entire body of climate scientists are unequivocally showing us that the world is getting warmer due primarily to human actions. But who cares what those eggheads have to say, right?
That's quite a stretch there. Without going into those tortured parallels, there are two big problems with your simile to religion:
1) AGW is a falsifiable hypothesis (and no religion is). Thus it can have evidence in contradiction or support. I.e. it is scientific.
2) All the evidence suggests AGW is real.
No, scientists were not convinced of global cooling. The media hyped up what a couple of them thought. You know, like when the media hyped up cold fusion back in the day?
Okay so first you say "nah, no warming, coz look at the past 5 years". When I tell you to look at the overall trend of the past 30 years (since there are fluctuations), you tell me that the past can't tell the future. You're sounding like a typical goalpost moving denier. Yes, we can tell that the earth is warming.
Many scientists/PhD's, yes. Very few climatologists and meteorologists etc., though. You know, the kind of scientist who are educated on this subject. Again, I draw a simile to creationists. This time with their list of evolution dissenters vs. the "Steve project" by the NCSE. Though, I think the Steve Project also lists scientists in general and not necessarily biologists. Anyway, you get the point.
All that matters is the science on the matter and it is relatively conclusive.
And, how can you say it is an accurate analogy/simile when I just refuted that analogy? Religions are not refutable. AGW is. Your simile is thus dead in the water. At least in the sense that matters. Whether or not you can interpret some sort of narrative in good vs evil and salvation etc. is moot as long as the science is there. Agreed?
So, okay let's move on to falsifiability. What would convince you that AGW is real?
I asked you a question. Get back to me when you can answer it.
Oops. Sorry, I'm having a similar discussion with someone else (FaganRoberts). I asked them what evidence would convince them AGW is happening. We had a talk about falsifiability.
But yes, you moved the goalpost. You thought 5 years in the past was a great way to measure whether or not the globe is warming, but not 30. Explain.
Your point is in that case wrong. The science is quite clear. You should start looking into it. It's not doomsday (ignore Al Gore and his ilk), but the climate is changing due to our carbon emissions. It is no hunch.
No credible climatologist will say there is "too much" carbon. It's just that we are adding to the natural carbon cycle and increasing the temperature. You could similarly ask: how high a flood is "too much water"?
Yes, CO2 is eaten by plants. Again using the flood simile, plants drink water. Are floods therefore safe or useful when they rush into your home?
You're just assuming now that what I've learned is "probably" not credible, and that I don't listen to deniers. Lame...
IKR!