Global Climate Change Science News

[Animavore]

To make it clearer for you, proclaiming that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, is a shit standard of evidence for the warming we observe being down to CO2.

Taken on it's own you might have a point. I also added in two more interconnect points. That we are pumping tons into the atmosphere, increasing the amount in the atmosphere from around 260ppm to over 400ppm. And that we see a rise in temperature which correlates. A rise which was predicted.

So you are being ultra dishonest here.

[Animavore]

It's meaningless, unless you can establish cause and effect.

Sure.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/empiri ... effect.htm

[mistermack]

Colouring it in didn't do anything to help your case. You said "CO2 is a greenhouse gas = someone or something must have made the universe. About the same standard of evidence."

That is precisely what you said. That CO2 is a greenhouse gas = someone or something must have made the universe. You equated the two (that's what the equals sign means) and then said they have the same standard of evidence to one another.

You messed up royally.

God, you are pathetically desperate. Now it's down to the equals sign, when what I said is perfectly clear. I'll try to get a "is the equivalent of" key added to my keyboard.
Fuck me, you are Seth reincarnated.
Edit, oh, and please don't keep quoting sceptical science.
You might as well quote the pope. I never look at any of those links.
It's an ACTIVIST blog.
I can see why you are like you are though.
Sceptical science=Daily Mail.
Have fun with that.

[Animavore]

Look even if what you did mean by it was that "CO2 is a greenhouse gas" is the same standard of evidence for global warming that "someone/thing caused the universe" is evidence for god you still fucked up royally.

Someone/thing caused the universe is the claim which requires evidence to back it up. Someone/thing caused the universe is not given as evidence for itself. Not even in the Kalam cosmological argument.

P1. Everything that exists has a cause.
P2. The universe began to exist.
C. Therefore the universe has a cause.

P1 and 2 are given as the evidence to support C.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. You don't dispute that. Good. But CO2 is a greehouse gas is a premise. Not a conclusion. Which, "Therefore someone/thing must have created the universe" is.

[Animavore]

It's an ACTIVIST blog.

No it's not. It's a science blog with contributions from scientists.

[mistermack]

The Kalam argument is just as much bollocks as the CO2 argument.

Cause and effect are what's missing to both.

[mistermack]

It's an ACTIVIST blog.

No it's not. It's a science blog with contributions from scientists.

It's not science, when it's activist. It can't be both.
Science tolerates dissent, and leaves the door open for being wrong.

[Animavore]

The Kalam argument is just as much bollocks as the CO2 argument.

Cause and effect are what's missing to both.

No it's not. I just graciously posted you a nice science article which even included a video.

There's no way you read and watched it all in that time.

[Animavore]

It's an ACTIVIST blog.

No it's not. It's a science blog with contributions from scientists.

It's not science, when it's activist. It can't be both.
Science tolerates dissent, and leaves the door open for being wrong.

It's not activist. It deals in common misconceptions and corrects them. It's not even described as activist on Wiki.

Skeptical Science (occasionally abbreviated SkS) is a climate science blog and information resource created in 2007 by Australian blogger and author John Cook. In addition to publishing articles on current events relating to climate science and climate policy, the site maintains a large database of articles analyzing the merit of arguments commonly put forth by those involved in the global warming controversy who oppose the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change.

[Animavore]

Here's what an climate action activist site looks like.

http://350.org/

Do y'know how you can tell it's an activist site? Because they're involved in activism.

[mistermack]

Sceptical science is biased garbage.

You can graciously post as many links as you like, your grace. Ten seconds is all it takes to detect the blind bias, in everything written there. That's why I don't waste my time on them.

They're a bit like your posts, really. There's a lesson there somewhere.

[Animavore]

Sceptical science is biased garbage.

You can graciously post as many links as you like, your grace. Ten seconds is all it takes to detect the blind bias, in everything written there. That's why I don't waste my time on them.

They're a bit like your posts, really. There's a lesson there somewhere.

Yeah. The lesson is you can't teach the willfully ignorant anything.

[mistermack]

Yeah. The lesson is you can't teach the willfully ignorant anything.

[Animavore]

Yeah. The lesson is you can't teach the willfully ignorant anything.

Lol. Did you think I was referring to myself?

Sorry, mate. I'm not the one who refuses to read articles in case they may shatter my worldview. That was you. The epitome of willful ignorance.

[mistermack]

Yeah. The lesson is you can't teach the willfully ignorant anything.

Lol. Did you think I was referring to myself?

Sorry, mate. I'm not the one who refuses to read articles in case they may shatter my worldview. That was you. The epitome of willful ignorance.

Just flip the record over.