Exciton:


I don't even know how to reply. Same reason I couldn't reply some other guy. I'll just comment on errors.

Paragraph 2 says global warming is a fraud while paragraph 3 talks about inevitable temp rise (based on studies from god knows where - citation needed).

I won't even bother to convince you that global warming is real or that fossil fuels are a major cause. Go and get good info online based on peer reviewed papers.

Paragraph 2 also talks about Al Gore like he's a Nobel prize winning scientist due to his great work on global warming. Lol.

Paragraph 4. I don't know it's purpose. Except the last 2 lines which I disagree with. Auto manufacturers will most likely discontinue production of petrol/deisel powered cars in the future primarily due to government regulations, associated subsidies, people's increased awareness and civil responsibility to keep the environment clean etc.

The western media cannot bully the whole world to buy their propaganda. Global temperature rise and fall and it has regulated itself just fine through the ages.

Well Al Gore received a novel price Fyi for telling "smart" scientists that Co2 is a greenhouse gas-same Co2 you and I breath out, same Co2 that plants breath in.

He put together a team of political scientists to push this narrative but we all know that it's a scam. Well he made hundreds of millions off of it and his own house still connects to national grid. And that's why msm is angry that Trump pulled out of the Paris accord.

It's all about the money bro. Proponents of global warming are after the money. The planet is a creation master piece. I'm all for protecting the environment and cutting down on pollution but the idea that human activity is the cause of global warming is absurd. The Sierra club has refused to debate global warming science till date. What are they afraid of?

Hypocrisy is when Americans cry about global warming then outsource their production to China and India. Or are we not on thesame planet?


Bottom line. Technology will evolve over time. But demonizing today's technology because you want the market share to yourself is a no no.

Iamzik:


The western media cannot bully the whole world to buy their propaganda. Global temperature rise and fall and it has regulated itself just fine through the ages.

Well Al Gore received a novel price Fyi for telling "smart" scientists that Co2 is a greenhouse gas-same Co2 you and I breath out, same Co2 that plants breath in.

He put together a team of political scientists to push this narrative but we all know that it's a scam. Well he made hundreds of millions off of it and his own house still connects to national grid. And that's why msm is angry that Trump pulled out of the Paris accord.

It's all about the money bro. Proponents of global warming are after the money. The planet is a creation master piece. I'm all for protecting the environment and cutting down on pollution but the idea that human activity is the cause of global warming is absurd. The Sierra club has refused to debate global warming science till date. What are they afraid of?

Hypocrisy is when Americans cry about global warming then outsource their production to China and India. Or are we not on thesame planet?


Bottom line. Technology will evolve over time. But demonizing today's technology because you want the market share to yourself is a no no.

Well, accept my apology for laughing off your Al Gore claim. He truly won a Nobel prize for his efforts to disseminate important information to the public.

But that's where it stops.

Every other thing you said is just the usual conspiracy stuff. And I can't argue with you because your arguments are only explanatory (at least within the time frame of our existence), they aren't falsifiable (i.e there's no logical possibility of designing an experiment to show that your claims are flat out wrong).

It's the same reason why it's a waste of time to argue with flat-earthers, alien visitor believers, that pastor can cure HIV believers, there is God believers etc etc.

What I mean is this: you will explain everything away to fit your claim. E.g. If I claim there's well recorded data supporting average temp rise, you'd respond by saying we're still in the temp rise regime and will regulate itself at a later time... a time which your hypothesis can't even make an attempt to predict - primarily because there's no data: the Anthropocene era is unique in the sense that it's the first time in the history of Earth that the inhabitants have had a huge impact on ecology and most likely the climate. So, your argument is un-testable, not falsifiable.

However, the opposite is. And many scientists around the world agree that the data supports the global warming claim.

Exciton:


Well, accept my apology for laughing off your Al Gore claim. He truly won a Nobel prize for his efforts to disseminate important information to the public.

But that's where it stops.

Every other thing you said is just the usual conspiracy stuff. And I can't argue with you because your arguments are only explanatory (at least within the time frame of our existence), they aren't falsifiable (i.e there's no logical possibility of designing an experiment to show that your claims are flat out wrong).

It's the same reason why it's a waste of time to argue with flat-earthers, alien visitor believers, that pastor can cure HIV believers, there is God believers etc etc.

What I mean is this: you will explain everything away to fit your claim. E.g. If I claim there's well recorded data supporting average temp rise, you'd respond by saying we're still in the temp rise regime and will regulate itself at a later time... a time which your hypothesis can't even make an attempt to predict - primarily because there's no data: the Anthropocene era is unique in the sense that it's the first time in the history of Earth that the inhabitants have had a huge impact on ecology and most likely the climate. So, your argument is un-testable, not falsifiable.

However, the opposite is. And many scientists around the world agree that the data supports the global warming claim.

Another falacy of generalisation there in bold.
Science is not a consensus of majority vote as you will like us to believe. The idea that a fictitious 70% of "scientists" agree doesn't make it final.

That's the beauty of science. Science is open to debate and Is based on facts. Oh an there is data collected from weather observation satellites in the US since 1970 which shows no significant increase in global temperatures in the last 47 years but the sierra club find it convenient to ignore that.

There are over 30,000 scientists in the USA including 9000 PhDs including the founder of weather channel,
pleading for an open debate on climate change. Why are they being bullied into silence by politicians and the media?

Iamzik:


Another falacy of generalisation there in bold.
Science is not a consensus of majority vote as you will like us to believe. The idea that a fictitious 70% of "scientists" agree doesn't make it final.

That's the beauty of science. Science is open to debate and Is based on facts. Oh an there is data collected from weather observation satellites in the US since 1970 which shows no significant increase in global temperatures in the last 47 years but the sierra club find it convenient to ignore that.

There are over 30,000 scientists in the USA including 9000 PhDs including the founder of weather channel,
pleading for an open debate on climate change. Why are they being bullied into silence by politicians and the media?

Hehehe.

Many scientists agree that conclusions based on experiments leading to the development of quantum mechanics are right. Same goes for theories derived from conclusions based on experiments in various scientific fields. So, you might as well find fault in all of these theories based on falacy of generalization since there's always a chance that, in the far distant future, a dispositive evidence can arise; thereby, falsifying the theory.

You confuse mathematical logic (where absolute truth exists) with reality, the realm of science, where the best approximation of the truth (an accepted working theory) is the best one can get.

Again, I repeat, a scientific theory is falsifiable. That which isn't is pseudo-scientific. That's why science is self-correcting.

Many scientists come to the same conclusion on global warming. So, it's simply gonna be accepted as true... until evidence against its predictions show up.



I guess that does it. Have a nice day.