What I don't understand is how Climate change has become a social and popular question.
We have nothing to do on that question. This is not our business.
Are people arguing in their daily life of the relevance of using ethanol as a solvant in an organic synthesis? No of course not! They don't give a fuck and even if they'd do they know they don't have the skills required to understand fully the process. They let this question for the chimists.
So why don't we just stop discussing climate change and listen to the scientists results?
I don't know about you, but I am educated enough in science to know that man made climate change is complete horse shit. One or two big volcanic eruption puts more CO2 into the atmosphere than all of humanity ever has. I don't have to believe in tinkerbell because I know it is a fairy tale. You keep clapping your hands though if it makes you feel like you are doing something.
without looking it up (i'm lazy tonight) gonna state you are wrong about the comparison of man's co2 to volcanoes.
However, moggie presents a different type of issue. He argues from ignorance and believes that has moral and ethical standing because of a preconceived "righteousness." Ignorance is bliss, since the devout can just take the word of the Sciencies about whatever. Think of how wonderful this is. There are no difficult issues to understand, you are simply told what to think, and if you are a good person, you obey.
I know that after you think it over, you will repent of your thinkcrimes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVgl1HOxpj8I may have overstated it slightly,
Yeah slightly xD
That's the least you could say! Being wrong by a factor of 10 000 is not exactly a "slightly" mistake ^^
I looked at your sources a bit. And I see nothing like a demonstration.
Here is the extract of your "sources":
It is ten times as likely that atmospheric CO2 is coming from natural sources, namely the warming ocean surface, as it is likely that it is coming from anthropogenic sources. The changes in CO2 track ocean surface temperature, not global carbon emissions. Burning fossil fuels is not increasing atmospheric CO2. Recovery from the Little Ice Age, driven by the sun, is causing the oceans to release CO2. It is temperature driving CO2 release, not the other way around. Just as it has always been.
It's a complete bold statement! I mean maybe it's right I don't know, there is 0 explanation about that. They don't say why it's "ten times likely" they don't compare the amounts emited or explain how they measured it or anything. They just say it's "ten times more likely".
Am I missing anything? For me it's not exactly what I would call a scientific demonstration.
There "explanation" is simply a comparison of two curves saying that in fact... Well sun activity impacts CO2 realease? Yeah well we already knew it thanks, that's not the point! The point is to know if man made CO2 is negligeable, not to know if rise of sun activity will rise CO2 level!