Topic: Why are some people still skeptical about climate change? - page 3. (Read 22113 times)

Quote me exactly the line from your source please where it says 94% scientists globally support your claim. This is your claim... you produce it.

Like... That was litteraly my post one page ago?


Do you suffer from short term memory loss? Cause that would explain a lot.

ALL SCIENTISTS... GLOBALLY... mmkay. I will let you have fun on a snipe hunt trying to source that like a good little monkey. Now go... source your claim Mr. smarty pants.

Less ridiculous than considering science is built through empirical data I hope.

What do you do when a blind man is saying you're wrong about the color of a picture? Do you have any idea how exhausting it is to explain to a child something while he's denying it simply because he decided he won't listen? This is exactly what's happening here.

You have the balls to claim a worldwide scientific consensus is false and based on unscientific evidences and reasonning while thousands of studies and professionnals have diligently digged up the subject.

You're the one claiming 94% of the scientist of our planet are wrong about what science is about.

How ridiculous is that?

You talk about it being a cult while you refuse to act any near to a scientifical way. You refuse evidences that are considered as accurate and satisfactory by pretty much anyone without justifying yourselves. Then you refuse to answer what evidence you would consider admissible because "the burden of proof is on the one making the claim".

How ridiculous is that?

If you weren't in a country where a degree needs to go in debt maybe you would have had the occasion to actually go to school and educate yourself. Then maybe you wouldn't say such nonsense as "empirical data is the core of science" which is both false and an insult to all the scientists.

But hey, I'm the one who is ridiculous I guess?

Though I'm not the one acting exactly like a religious fanatic saying "but where is the proof that god doesn't exist?" Because that's what you're doing here. "Where is the empirical proof linking CO2, human activities and climate change?" is not a valid question simply because there can't be a proof. You ask for empirical data, "not theory, not simulation, real data" well guess what? The only way to obtain such data would be to clone our universe and observe it without humans.

So either educate yourself or stop trying to act like scientist. You're fanatics, not scientists, and you're acting EXACTLY like flat earthers or evolution denyers.
-> going against a global scientific consensus without pointing at scientific incoherences
-> refusing evidences without any reasons
-> claiming those evidences are "not enough" exactly like evolution denyers asks for "the missing link"
-> refusing to say "this evidence would convince me" because you know damn well there would be someone to find it considering the amount of work done in the field.

How ridiculous is that?

Ok I give up you're too stupid sorry

I just hope you haven't reproduced that's all. Cheers.

As far as I am concerned you lost the argument from the get go with your unscientific statements which when reminded of, you responded with ad hominem insults.

Any idea how ridiculous that is?

You mean giving up I see many doing it already on this thread, it is tiresome when honest discussions turn to personal ridiculing.

If you are an engineer I hope to Christ you don't engineer anything people's lives depend on. Either way engineers are not research scientists. Engineers are trained to be told what a data-set and tolerances are and follow that, they aren't trained in research science, so the fact you have an engineering degree is meaningless.

Lets not do some "revert thinking" where you try to pawn off the burden of proof upon me when it is yours as the one presenting the premise. "pretty much everyone" does not agree, and your supposed support of that claim has been thoroughly demonstrated to be garbage already in previous analysis of your "94% of all scientists" figure.


Instead of solid proof, how about you start with some empirical data, ANY EMPIRICAL DATA... AT ALL.



You don't even know the definitions of the words you use and you are trying to lecture me on scientific theory. There is no link between climate change and human activity proven. End of story. There is no fallacy here, except you trying to claim it is a fallacy.





Oh look, its Captain Postmodern with his astounding powers of poor reading comprehension just to round this all off.

Of course but TECSHARE is simply denying that.
There are proof for temperature rise, CO2 levels and human activity producing CO2. There aren't any data for the link between the two simply because such data can't possibly exist. And all his argumentation is to say that the linked aren't proven because there is no data which is a complete logical fallacy of course.

But I already tried this way so I'm trying another right now. I have few hopes but well...

What?

No data supporting the greenhouse effect?

No data showing how much carbon humans have released into the atmosphere?

Maybe you meant there is no deductive proof but the association of combustion--->CO2----> warming is solid

Damn, seems my engineering degree is false then.

Let's do some revert thinking then. What would you accept as a reasonnable evidence of climate change proof?

I KNOW that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, but the fact is that pretty much everyone agrees that the provided evidences are, by large, enough to prove the claim. You're saying it's not the case.

Please then what would be a solid proof?

Once again, that's not how it works, as anyone with a high school level science education knows. Empirical data doesn't become "meaningless", and neither do theories. The fact is they are simply not interchangable even under these circumstances.

TL;DR

STOP PRETENDING YOUR THEORIES ARE SCIENCE


So what part of the topic does this have to do with? I know you are obsessed with me, but please try to contribute something.

Oh yeah, I remember what it is to debate with TECSHARE. He just throws a bunch of studies or statistics around and thinks he is clever. He never makes his own assumptions about anything, probably unable to.

Ok well I did my best but you really don't want to try and read. You just build your own walls and I can't do much against that...

Do you agree on the fact that matter is made of atoms?

How do you think this theory was created? Where do you think it comes from? Empirical data?
Absolutely not.
Because there was no data... The technical means of the 19th century didn't allow John Dalton to imagine experiments. There was no experiments! He just imagined a theory and it answered some good questions, seemed logical, had no counter examples.

You seem to believe science is either "proven" or "not proven" but that's not the case... I don't know how to tell you otherwise: it doesn't work that way. That's all.


EDIT: To be clear.
If there is an experiment to test your theory then empirical data is essential.
If there is no experiment to test your theory, then empirical data is meaningless but it doesn't mean the theory is.

Is it easy enough to understand like this?

Lets review scientific method:




Hmm... looks like you are skipping the most critical step which is where the actual evidence comes from and substituting more theories instead.




You don't get scientific knowledge thru osmosis (look it up), so mentioning you know people who do research is meaningless. Every statement you make gives me ever more examples of your total inability to comprehend science and scientific method.

Absolutely not.

I'll admit there is no scientifical data linking temperature rise, CO2 levels and human activities. That's COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from saying there is no empirical data backing global warming theories.

I'll try to turn the table a bit.

What would you consider a reasonnable proof?

This is simply false.

Serious question coming.

I got my degree in computer science so I don't do much research. But I think I know about 30 to 35 people working in research currently or having worked in research in the last 10 years. From numerous background: Chemistry, Photonic, Quantum Physics and 3 in "soft science" such as psychology.

I don't know anyone working like that. Science isn't all about empirical data at all contrary to what you think... Have you ever talked to someone working as a scientific? Actually making some research?

No, I will admit when I am wrong, but you aren't smart enough to be the guy to put me in that position in the overwhelming majority of cases. At least you can admit your global warming cult has no empirical data backing it, and therefore has no science backing it.

Of course I can't.

There is nothing that can be answered to you, you can't be proven wrong.

Using ridiculous comparison is a tool to try to make you think a little bit but it doesn't seem it has worked.


You are asking for empirical data linking temperature rise, CO2 levels and human activity.
This doesn't exist, cannot exist, will never exist. That's all.


But if like TECSHARE you believe that's how science work, then you just need to go back to school. This is not how science work, this has never been and will never be.

No, he's not, and he can't. He already thinks he is preaching from a position of intellectual superiority as you can tell from his flat earth comments as if these subjects have any relation.