Atheists, Agnostics, and Anti-theists of ModDB
Educational
A group for those without religion, as well as those who oppose it. Atheism and Agnosticism and Anti-theism.
The Old Age Argument
(view original)
Post a comment
Do you seriously think that we oppose global warming because it snowed last year?
Please, go back to your ecofascist hole. Either that or go read some articles or watch some documentaries that help you understand our point of view about climate change, like this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ
There are a LOT of things NOT being said to people about climate change, and it is a HUGE dilemma in science.
There is a huge dilemma in science? Oh really? 97% of climate scientists agree that man is contributing to it.
if 3% of those scientists are being bashed over it, then its not science, there is no science when there is an "absolute truth" being told to people, and most aren't even questioning it. That is called "religion".
I am sure you would understand more if you
PS: that "97%", where did you get that? If so many people oppose it, then how are they only 3%? Well, unfortunately most of those who oppose it are religious crazies and the ones trying to find REAL proof of the opposition of global warming don't want to be heard either.
Skepticalscience.com
This provides basic, average and high levels of overview on the state of scientific consensus regarding global warming.
Also, the 3% are usually not bashed, just looked at with disbelief and then presented with evidence. Also, this 'bashed on' and 'absolute truth' thing. Science does this thing called weighing up the evidence. In this case the evidence points to human contribution of global warming.
If you fly in the face of all the evidence and sing 'la la la' with your fingers in your ears and your eyes closed, as the 3% generally do, then expect to be ridiculed to an extent.
i am not pointing my fingers to the evidence and saying "la la la", i just found the 3% to be more believable, they are finding flaws in global warming and looking for the evidence, in fact, we had more CO2 in our atmosphere during the ice age than we have today
I wasn't saying you were, I was explaining that those you claim are being 'bashed' are usually bashed because they do that. I apologise for not being clear, it wouldn't let me edit my post.
I don't get why people don't accept it. I understand people arguing over the rate of it occurring but the principle is simple really; humans burn stuff. Burning stuff releases CO2. Sun rays enter through the atmosphere to the Earth's surface which warms the Earth. Normally most heat would be radiated away from the Earth. CO2 blocks some of this. Extra CO2 means more heat blocked and re-radiated to Earth. Thus the Earth heats up more. Of course, other gases also contribute such as; methane, nitrous oxide and CFCs.