+- Atheist Discussion (https://atheistdiscussion.org/forums)
+-- Forum: General Discussion (https://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=89)
+--- Forum: Spirituality, Pseudoscience and Conspiracy Theories (https://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=94)
+--- Thread: Climate Change from Alternative Viewpoints (/showthread.php?tid=3336)
Climate Change from Alternative Viewpoints - Deltabravo - 05-21-2019
Thread split off from the climate change thread in the STEM subforum because the conversation has veered away from discussing science topics that have support from the majority of the scientific community.
It's Noyb.
I just noticed that the OP begins with the statement that this thread was started at the request of someone, presumably someone of some status on this site.
It also describes this as a "discussion".
Given that this is a site for atheists to discuss topics related to atheism and where there is such a robust exchange that there is a thread entitled the Colliseum, where people engage in knock down, no holds barred, eye gouging, nut-squeezing fights to the death, it seems rich to me that there is literally no one on this particular thread except me who wants to have a discussion about the actual issues. It seems quite the contrary, not to be a "discussion" at all, but, rather, a news feed from the IPCC and its followers.
Because of this, I've concluded that there is some kind of creed developing here, and that climate warming is a central tenet of that creed. While I am a supporter of the environmental movement, I don't see science as something which depends and originates in group-think, but, rather, in healthy skepticism and examination of settled beliefs and scientific views. As far as I am concerned, no topic in real science is closed for discussion and if I ever see someone say that there is now a "concensus" about something, I'm always interested to hear if that is the case and open to anyone who challenges that, because that is how scientific knowledge grows and how bad ideas are discarded for better ones. It is how we learn, by questioning.
So, I've pointed out that I do agree that the planet's temperature was rising as a result of the end of the last ice age, that we have known this for a long time, that I lived in an area where this was obvious and more obvious than it is to those living, for instance, in the majority of mainland USA where they don't regularly see glacial eratics and retreating glaciers. Because of this, I have put down this realisation that the world's temperature is rising by people in largely populated coastal cities, which might be flooded, as a kind of hysteria, and resulting from them not realising until more recently, that the ice is melting all over the world, and has been for some time. I put down their blaming it on humans as resulting from a known and documented movement headed by the likes of Maurice Strong to harness climate change arguments for political purposes, which Strong admitted: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/paris-climate-change-conference/12035401/Farewell-to-the-man-who-invented-climate-change.html "Farewell to the man who invented 'climate change’ . To this day, global climate policy is still shaped by the agenda of Maurice Strong, a Canadian multimillionaire". I put down the fact that I know about this man more than most do because I knew him, worked for him, my father worked for him and I have, therefore, followed his career for nearly forty years.
I've pointed out that my approach to things is to try to start with something which is a common garden fact and one which I can see myself. For instance, carbon dioxide is not used for blowing up party ballloons. It is heavier than air and if it formed a cloud, it would, like any cloud, cool down the surface of the planet, not warm it up. I also, from personal experience, have no doubt that the sea which I swim in regularly is getting cooler and my surroundings are greening up. I also came to the conclusion based on my own observations, that the sea across the road from my home was not rising at all or to any perceivable degree.
Because of those personal experiences I looked into this and discovered that I shared my views with an emeritus professor of meteorology from MIT, a Nobel Laureate, Nasa scientists and others such as Willie Soon.
If there were to be a discussion here, there's ample room for other views than are being expressed here. However, that's plainly, I can see now, not the purpose of this thread.
I would suggest that the result of this is that there has developed a gang mentality on this topic and I can't honestly fathom why this particular topic is treated this way when this is not a science forum and the object of this forum should not be to develop a "creed" and to try to drive out non-adherents, but to welcome free and open discussion.
RE: Climate Change - Gawdzilla Sama - 05-21-2019
We still wait for you report on the tides at Themyscira.
RE: Climate Change - Vera - 05-22-2019
(05-20-2019, 02:30 PM)Deltabravo Wrote: Yes, I live on an island in the Med. Which has no tide. And the sea level here is not rising. And it's getting colder. And I am an idiot. All of which is good.
Fixt. Tell this to your kids, if you have such. They are gonna have to live on this fucked up planet. But hey, you'll be fine. Dead, but fine.
RE: Climate Change - Gawdzilla Sama - 05-22-2019
Please don't tell me DB spawned.
RE: Climate Change - Vera - 05-22-2019
Apparently, the meek lazy shall inherit save the earth
UK workers must move to nine-hour week if carbon levels do not change, says thinktank.
RE: Climate Change - Gawdzilla Sama - 05-22-2019
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-guardian-is-changing-the-language-it-uses-about-the-environment
RE: Climate Change - Minimalist - 05-22-2019
Quote:Instead of “climate change” the preferred terms are “climate emergency, crisis or breakdown” and “global heating” is favoured over “global warming”, although the original terms are not banned.
I can't help but notice that "Chinese Hoax" did not make their new list.
RE: Climate Change - Gawdzilla Sama - 05-22-2019
Neither did "Trump for King."
RE: Climate Change - SYZ - 05-23-2019
(05-21-2019, 05:08 PM)Deltabravo Wrote: Because of those personal experiences I looked into this and discovered that I shared my views with an emeritus professor of meteorology from MIT, a Nobel Laureate, Nasa scientists and others such as Willie Soon.
I checked on Dr Willie Wei-Hock Soon's credentials, and found them to be somewhat lacking, and very
biassed against the theories of global warming. As detailed in this link, Dr Soon has never had any
formal training as a climatologist, and stated in 2003 that one of his main teachers in climate science
was ExxonMobil-funded denier Dr David Legates.
Dr. Willie Soon, A Career Fueled by Big Oil and Coal
US oil and coal companies, including ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute, Koch Industries,
Peabody Coal, and the world’s largest coal-burning utility, Southern Company, have contributed more
than $1.3 million over the past decade to Dr Soon's research. According to Greenpeace, every grant
Dr Soon has received since 2002 has been from oil or coal interests, while failing to disclose that
conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers.
Could you let us know of the name of the emeritus professor from MIT, and the Nobel Laureate you've referred to.
RE: Climate Change - The Kerbinator - 05-23-2019
(05-21-2019, 05:08 PM)Deltabravo Wrote: I've pointed out that my approach to things is to try to start with something which is a common garden fact and one which I can see myself. For instance, carbon dioxide is not used for blowing up party ballloons. It is heavier than air and if it formed a cloud, it would, like any cloud, cool down the surface of the planet, not warm it up. I also, from personal experience, have no doubt that the sea which I swim in regularly is getting cooler and my surroundings are greening up. I also came to the conclusion based on my own observations, that the sea across the road from my home was not rising at all or to any perceivable degree.
Apart from the fact you massively misrepresent science and the concept of consensus, I think this part is the most representative of your total inabilty to understand science. Because according to you we should be dead. Why? Well, most of us are breathing 100% argon as it's the heaviest of the three most abundant elements in the earth's atmosphere and you subscribe to a bizarre differentiation theory hypothesis conjecture on the state of the atmosphere.
Please explain how we are alive.
RE: Climate Change - Deesse23 - 05-23-2019
(05-21-2019, 05:08 PM)Deltabravo Wrote: It is heavier than air and if it formed a cloud, it would, like any cloud, cool down the surface of the planet, not warm it up.
#1
We already have established that the atmospheres´ gases are mixed up. But thank you for demonstrating that you actually dont intend to engage with everyone else. You are just preaching.
#2
CO2 in the atmoshpere actually doesnt cool down, but heat up the surface. In case you havent understood or even read my scientific explanation (which i think has a little bit more credibility than your "personal experience") i am going to link to my post again, so you may, some day, change your mind and actually read something other than you rown drivel.
http://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=1678&pid=103688#pid103688
RE: Climate Change - Vera - 05-23-2019
(05-23-2019, 06:13 PM)The Kerbinator Wrote: Please explain how we are alive.
In all fairness, he does come across as pretty much brain-dead, so...
RE: Climate Change - SYZ - 05-24-2019
This may clarify the CO2 cycle for DeltaBravo...
![[Image: carbon_cycle_diagram_ipcc_900x543.jpg]](https://scied.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/images/large_image_for_image_content/carbon_cycle_diagram_ipcc_900x543.jpg)
This diagrams illustrates Earth's carbon cycle. It shows how carbon
atoms "flow" between various "reservoirs" in the Earth system.
Reservoirs are shown as rectangular blocks; flows between reservoirs
are indicated by arrows. The sizes of reservoirs are in units of
gigatons of carbon (GtC).
Flows between reservoirs are in units of gigatons of carbon per
year (GtC yr-1). Red arrows and numbers indicate flows and
changes in reservoir sizes associated with human activities such
as burning fossil fuel and land use changes. Black numbers and
flow arrows indicate typical values prior to major human influence.
RE: Climate Change - Deltabravo - 05-24-2019
(05-23-2019, 06:13 PM)The Kerbinator Wrote:(05-21-2019, 05:08 PM)Deltabravo Wrote: I've pointed out that my approach to things is to try to start with something which is a common garden fact and one which I can see myself. For instance, carbon dioxide is not used for blowing up party ballloons. It is heavier than air and if it formed a cloud, it would, like any cloud, cool down the surface of the planet, not warm it up. I also, from personal experience, have no doubt that the sea which I swim in regularly is getting cooler and my surroundings are greening up. I also came to the conclusion based on my own observations, that the sea across the road from my home was not rising at all or to any perceivable degree.
Apart from the fact you massively misrepresent science and the concept of consensus, I think this part is the most representative of your total inabilty to understand science. Because according to you we should be dead. Why? Well, most of us are breathing 100% argon as it's the heaviest of the three most abundant elements in the earth's atmosphere and you subscribe to a bizarre differentiation theory hypothesis conjecture on the state of the atmosphere.
Please explain how we are alive.
What we breathe in is far from pure oxygen, but roughly by volume 78 per cent nitrogen, 21 per cent oxygen, 0.965 per cent argon and 0.04 per cent carbon dioxide (plus some helium, water and other gases)
CO2 is produced as a bi-product of the production of energy within living cells. It's not essential to breath CO2, if that's what you are getting at. It's produced by life forms, at ground level, and birds, so it doesn't need to be available at altitude, even if humans depended on it to live, which they don't. It's then reabsorbed into the soil, plants and the seas. So the cycle of CO2 is entirely at ground level. Helium, for instance, is completely different and once it escapes into the atmosphere, it just goes up and ends up heading off into space, never to return again. There's a limited supply of it and once it's gone, it's gone. CO2 is not like that.
The other issue is where the measurements are taken of CO2 in the atmosphere. There are absolutely no monitors above 99.9999...% of the planet's surface. NASA only just recently sent up a CO2 analyzer. There is a monitor on Mount Kilauea in Hawaii. But, that is measuring CO2 given off around that area from vegetation and the ocean. It's impossible to say that any of it comes from human sources other than through modeling and what you then have, if you say increases in CO2 are taking place at higher levels, is just a naked assertion. Increases in CO2 in Hawaii are entirely consistent with the idea that increases of temperature cause increases in CO2 production by life forms in the sea, which increase with increased temperature.
What is profoundly disturbing is the idea that the IPCC and climate politicians decided that the idea of restricting temperature increase to 2 degrees C should be changed to 1.5 degrees C. The folly of this is plain as day. What it suggests is that human civilization is the ONLY cause of temperature change such that we can now decide by how much the temperature is going to rise, with no reference to the sun having any effect at all. What a profoundly anthropocentric, and flawed view of reality.
There are so many levels of discomfort, disconnection and delusions associated with Climate Change that it's hard to know where to start.
As for the notion that Maurice Strong made his way to the top of the environmental movement after a career in the petroleum industry where he fronted the nationalisation of virtually every American oil company operating in Canada, and not once decried the use of petroleum, and that he had no education to suit him to any role in industry or environmental science, and was an admitted lifetime "friend" of the communist Chinese government, is somehow a delusion, all I can say about that is it's no wonder America has now become a satellite of Russia. You didn't notice, it seems, that there was a cold war against both Russian and Chinese communism and you're only now finding out that these to countries actually continue to try to expand their influence by whatever means they can.
RE: Climate Change - The Kerbinator - 05-25-2019
(05-24-2019, 03:02 PM)Deltabravo Wrote: What we breathe in is far from pure oxygen, but roughly by volume 78 per cent nitrogen, 21 per cent oxygen, 0.965 per cent argon and 0.04 per cent carbon dioxide (plus some helium, water and other gases)
CO2 is produced as a bi-product of the production of energy within living cells. It's not essential to breath CO2, if that's what you are getting at.
No, that's not even vaguely close to what I'm getting at. You say CO2 is heavy so should sink. I'm asking why the atmosphere isn't strongly differentiated and why we live in a zone with an atmosphere mixed with the gases you state. Accordind to you we should be suffocating in a rich zone of argon.
Also, please respond to my previous point about your misrepresentation of CO2 increases following warming.
RE: Climate Change - Deltabravo - 05-27-2019
(05-25-2019, 07:38 AM)The Kerbinator Wrote:(05-24-2019, 03:02 PM)Deltabravo Wrote: What we breathe in is far from pure oxygen, but roughly by volume 78 per cent nitrogen, 21 per cent oxygen, 0.965 per cent argon and 0.04 per cent carbon dioxide (plus some helium, water and other gases)
CO2 is produced as a bi-product of the production of energy within living cells. It's not essential to breath CO2, if that's what you are getting at.
No, that's not even vaguely close to what I'm getting at. You say CO2 is heavy so should sink. I'm asking why the atmosphere isn't strongly differentiated and why we live in a zone with an atmosphere mixed with the gases you state. Accordind to you we should be suffocating in a rich zone of argon.
Also, please respond to my previous point about your misrepresentation of CO2 increases following warming.
I'm saying light gases rise and heavy gases sink. If the atmosphere was still and stable, with no winds and no fluctuation in temperature between day and night, gases would find their levels according to their weight. Argon, from what I've read is produced throughout the atmosphere so it's evenly distributed and in such small quantities that it would be well mixed at all heights. Since the atmosphere is not stable, it would circulate around with air movement. I don't know any more than that, but, yes, if you were in a room with no air movement and you were breathing from the lowest 1% of the air, and that was Argon, then you would have some difficulty, but that's doesn't happen because that's not what the world is like.
You can read up on why the atmosphere isn't differentiated. At high altitude, it is. Below a certain level it is mixed.
The problem here is that it is "said" that CO2 is well-mixed. Is that a statement based on measurements at all levels and in all places? Or is it just an assertion without a lot of science behind it? Where are all the CO2 measurements being taken? What instruments are being used? I've posted a paper here which shows that CO2 is not well-mixed according to what appeared to be satellite imagery.
I'm not saying that there isn't CO2 in the atmosphere. But, unlike Argon, it isn't produced at altitude. It's produced at ground level. CO2 produced by humans is all produced at ground level. It represents a couple of percent of the entire production of CO2 by the planet. After being produced, it's reabsorbed back into the planet in what are called "sinks" like the oceans. It does not rise naturally in the atmosphere like helium or hydrogen so in theory, it should have a very short life span as an airborne gas.
I've mentioned before that the heat of the summer over the Sahara desert causes dust to rise and then travel at high altitude all over Europe. https://metro.co.uk/2019/04/24/giant-cloud-saharan-dust-hits-uk-leaving-cars-filthy-9309302/ These Sahara dust storm, for instance, drop out their dust over a matter of a couple of days as the wind blows the dust into colder areas.
It's heat and wind which carries heavy gases and particles upwards but then it drops out. CO2 produced by humans will have pattern of distribution consistent with wind circulation.
I've only raised this issue to point out one aspect of the problem with CO2 being a cause of climate change. I feel that we take too much for granted now, to the point that we don't even question the obvious. The more significant problem with the theory is that CO2 not only follows global warming, because it is produced by life forms which increase in number when the temperature rises, but it causes cooling. So, rather than isolating something which causes warming, these scientists are pointing to a gas which counteracts global warming by cooling down the planet. It's produced as a protective mechanism in the environment and essential to life, but, hey, let's say it's a dangerous gas. I don't claim to know the answers. I just feel it's important to ask questions when something does not add up. Heavy gases tend to drop, not rise. Any gas will reflect incoming heat so more CO2 would reflect more light back into space, just like a cloud would do.
Go light a fire and watch the smoke. It only goes up so far and then it drops down and lands on your neighbours' laundry on their clothes lines.
RE: Climate Change - SYZ - 05-27-2019
(05-24-2019, 03:02 PM)Deltabravo Wrote: So the cycle of CO2 is entirely at ground level...
Nope. You many have missed my infographic, which totally disproves this:
Quote:There are absolutely no monitors above 99.9999% of the planet's surface...
Bullshit. Satellites orbiting up to 800km to 900km are constantly checking atmospheric composition.
You really need to read up on current science, as so many of your assertions are ill-conceived.
Quote:What it suggests is that human civilization is the ONLY cause of temperature change such that we can now decide by how much the temperature is going to rise, with no reference to the sun having any effect at all. What a profoundly anthropocentric, and flawed view of reality.
Again, no. This is just plain wrong, on both counts. You desperately need to educate yourself
on the atmospheric sciences, meteorology, and climatology—and I'm certainly not gonna try to
explain it all to someone who's so willfully ignorant.
Quote:As for the notion that Maurice Strong... was an admitted lifetime "friend" of the communist Chinese government, is somehow a delusion...
I quote Strong, verbatim:
"In China, they have used their system—which they call a socialist market economy—quite well
to achieve their objectives. It's also in a continuous process of evolution. I've had a working
relationship with China nearly all my adult life. I've seen the remarkable progress they've made
and are still making.
They're quick learners. They tend to be among the best in terms of business and industry. They
have learned how to use the methods of capitalism to meet their own goals of socialism. China
is among the best managed countries today."
RE: Climate Change - Alan V - 05-27-2019
(05-27-2019, 10:36 AM)SYZ Wrote: You desperately need to educate yourself on the atmospheric sciences, meteorology, and climatology—and I'm certainly not gonna try to explain it all to someone who's so willfully ignorant.
Deltabravo never answered the question about how many books on climate science he has read, yet he keeps calling us credulous for supporting the scientific consensus.
What a complete hypocrite.
RE: Climate Change - Deltabravo - 05-27-2019
(05-27-2019, 11:49 AM)Alan V Wrote:(05-27-2019, 10:36 AM)SYZ Wrote: You desperately need to educate yourself on the atmospheric sciences, meteorology, and climatology—and I'm certainly not gonna try to explain it all to someone who's so willfully ignorant.
Deltabravo never answered the question about how many books on climate science he has read, yet he keeps calling us credulous for supporting the scientific consensus.
What a complete hypocrite.
Quite the contrary.
I've never advocated any position on this site or TA. I simply post things which raise questions and I try to get people interested in topics which I find to be mind expanding. I believe only in inquiry and questioning of accepted dogma. What I do is the opposite of hypocrisy because I don't religiously hang on to ideas claiming I am right. Stating that one should always keep an open mind about everything, no matter how many people say the opposite is the definition of a liberal, free thinker.
You, on the other hand, have called me names while I have not called you any names. You have dealt with this by suggesting I be removed from the forum, right?
"A climate change denialist who repeats disinformation. Totally irresponsible. I wish I could remove him from the discussion."
Free thought?
RE: Climate Change - Alan V - 05-27-2019
(05-27-2019, 03:43 PM)Deltabravo Wrote: What I do is the opposite of hypocrisy because I don't religiously hang on to ideas claiming I am right. Stating that one should always keep an open mind about everything, no matter how many people say the opposite is the definition of a liberal, free thinker.
You, on the other hand, have called me names while I have not called you any names. You have dealt with this by suggesting I be removed from the forum, right?
"A climate change denialist who repeats disinformation. Totally irresponsible. I wish I could remove him from the discussion."
Free thought?
If what you say is true, then every expert is a bigot.
I stand by what I said, no matter how many times you call me religious or close-minded.
Facts matter.
RE: Climate Change - Alan V - 05-27-2019
"Plankton don't get nearly the respect they deserve. These tiny organisms (phytoplankton being plant-like cells that produce much of the world’s oxygen, zooplankton being little animals) float around at the mercy of currents and form the very foundation of the ocean food web. You like whales? They eat krill, which eat, wait for it, plankton. You like your climate? Phytoplankton soak up CO2 and spit out oxygen, helping keep the planet a pleasant human habitat. ... But plankton don’t do well in warmer waters, which carry fewer nutrients. One study has shown that phytoplankton alone have declined by 40 percent since 1950."
https://www.wired.com/story/foraminifera-plankton/?fbclid=IwAR21MNuoc7vgB7EtO9G3pnzdoq9b0m1VqfDHjhDi1BhPK6a1kvr5pwO10_c
RE: Climate Change - SYZ - 05-28-2019
(05-27-2019, 03:43 PM)Deltabravo Wrote: Stating that one should always keep an open mind about everything, no matter how many people say the opposite is the definition of a liberal, free thinker...
One needs to ensure though that one's mind is not so open that their brain falls out.
RE: Climate Change - Alan V - 05-28-2019
(05-28-2019, 08:41 AM)SYZ Wrote:(05-27-2019, 03:43 PM)Deltabravo Wrote: Stating that one should always keep an open mind about everything, no matter how many people say the opposite is the definition of a liberal, free thinker...
One needs to ensure though that one's mind is not so open that their brain falls out.
What one needs to keep one's mind open for is new information. That's hard to do when you haven't even absorbed the old information yet.
RE: Climate Change - Deesse23 - 05-28-2019
(05-27-2019, 03:43 PM)Deltabravo Wrote: Stating that one should always keep an open mind about everything, no matter how many people say the opposite is the definition of a liberal, free thinker.Depends.....Galileo was opposed by everyone. You arent Galileo, just because everyone opposes you,. What a fucking arrogant position to have!
I call this the idiots´fallacy in cases like yours. Just because everyone is opposing you, doesnt make you a free thinker or even right! If that is your best argument for your position then you dont have any good arguments. If thats your general method of approaching ideas, your epistemology sucks. 99% of people who are opposed by everyone are idiots and wrong. The veracity of a claim does not depend on how many (or few!) people accept it. Thumping your chest just because noone supports your view is pretty much arrogant and ignorant. Its not a virtue, its a vice.
Galileo was a free thinker, right, because he was:
#1 educated in the field he explored
#3 explored new and unpopular ideas
#2 and could demonstrate he was right
Two of these points dont apply to you. Guess which.
Galileo (like Newton) made simple experiments themselves (like you try to do), sometimes even inventing the tools to make their observations. However both were extremely well educated and well read in their contemporary math and physics. You arent. You have demonstrated this over and over. You can make obseravtions until Easter and pentecost are on the same day, you are too ill informed to make any resonable conclusions. I already have suggested, and hereby am suggesting again, you take some physics classes instead of parading your ignorance (physics of Co2) and arrogance ("im a free thinker, unlike everyone lese, because every one else opposes my view") around. Go to some community college, take some online courses (other than subscribing to whacky YT channels
), whatever.Open mind is a good thing however, in terms of not flat out rejecting any proposition, as weird as it may sound at first (relativity, quantum mechanics, earth is a globe). Yet, even an open minded person is justified to reject a claim within 5sec if its not supported by evidence, or contradicts the most basic knowledge we have (in the case of Co2).
What you are doing is (ab)using this term to get a go out of jail free card for your lies and ignorant misinterpretations. You arent Galileo, because no one supports your physics of Co2, you are an idiot, because its demonstrable you are wrong, and you arent educated (and probably humble) enough to see and admit your errors.
Im not saing im never an idiot. I am and was, quite often, but i always tried to admit my mistakes in the end, and learn.
RE: Climate Change - Aroura - 05-28-2019
(05-21-2019, 05:08 PM)Deltabravo Wrote: I would suggest that the result of this is that there has developed a gang mentality on this topic and I can't honestly fathom why this particular topic is treated this way when this is not a science forum and the object of this forum should not be to develop a "creed" and to try to drive out non-adherents, but to welcome free and open discussion.Should we have a discussion on Germ Theory? How about Gravity? Do you think Flat Earthers should be given an equal voice? Do you think people who accept Germ Theory are succumbing to "group think"?
When a majority of scientists agree on something, looking at the evidence presented and finding you also agree is not "group think".
Quote:Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcomeThere is nothing irrational or dysfunctional about accepted a conclusion that that evidence has led us to.
As with creationism and flat earth theory, global warming deniers of all stripes want to think there are two sides and that both sides should be presented equally, because our society has an odd fetish for this idea of neutrality. But the reality is that both sides of any argument are not inherently equal. I would even argue that to give voice to certain "sides" of specific arguments is dangerous as we give a broader platform and louder voice to ideas that can be harmful.
And that brings me to my next point. If your house had just caught fire, and the fire department showed up, then your neighbor wandered over and wanted to talk about how house fires are normal and natural, they happen all the time, and aren't a big deal. Most are small and easily extinguished, maybe it's just go out on it's own, and he wanted the firemen to stop working to put out your house, but instead listen to his argument as to why they shouldn't, would you find that reasonable? Do you think his argument should be given equal weight and time by the firemen?
Of course not, and people who have differing opinions are being completely disingenuous when they suggest such a farce.
It isn't a joke anymore. If scientists are correct, we are rapidly running out of time. If we started going at all of the available solutions hard core today, we will still suffer catastrophic consequences in the next century and beyond.
And even if they are wrong, so what? Is there a problem with making the air and water cleaner? What's the issue with focusing on cleaner, greener, CHEAPER energy for the future?
There are zero reason not to behave like there is a catastrophe coming, we are indeed at fault, and it must be remedied ASAP. Overreacting will not be in any way harmful, to humans, economies, nothing. Underreacting, however, could have dire consequences. I for one care about the people and creatures that will exist after I am gone.
So yeah. Shut yer trap, you loon. Your ideas aren't a "discussion", they are nonsense, and toxic poison at a time when we absolutely cannot afford it any more of this kind of "open minded" BS from people who don't understand what open mindedness really means. Go sit with the anti-vaxxers, flat earthers and creationists. The future cannot afford you.
Signed ~me.