Mr Khan said:
dsgrue3 said:
HappySqurriel said:
Mr Khan said:
I'm thinking in line with MikeIntellivision on this one. It depends on how we define "conservatives" here, in the sense that yes, you're going to discriminate against certain popularly held conservative viewpoints, because it's pretty clear that they're wrong
Supply-side economics, or a conservative historian would probably pass muster (so long as they weren't conservative revisionist) but not, for instance, a climate change skeptic or a creationist. |
Yeah, we CERN should kick all those skeptics out for believing that the Sun is the primary driver of climate on this planet. After all if we let these radical physicists continue with their "science" it could demonstrate that the vast majority of warming we associate with humans is actually caused by solar flares; matching hundreds of years of observations that predate climate alarmism.
|
Epic post is epic. Glad I jumped to page 2 before refuting his climate change statement.
|
There's nothing to refute. Just because the sun has a role doesn't mean that the millions of tons of carbon that's been pumped out of the earth, out of the natural carbon cycle, in the last 150 years has nothing to do with it.
|
There's no reason 150 years of this would provide any conclusive evidence on a planet 4.7 billion years old that has been experiencing cyclical climate change throughout its entire lifetime. Not to mention, if this were having a dramatic impact, the Earth would currently be experiencing its hottest temperatures. It isn't. Several studies of the Earth's surface temperature will show you the Earth has been MUCH hotter than it is today.
My point isn't that you're wrong about our impact, certainly there is evidence to support this, but to explain that it is inconclusive. (Which is why you cannot tout it as fact)
