>>10698767>I don't trust "science" that is based on ancient history because it's just stories.
It's more than stories, it's direct and verifiable fossil evidence pulled from the ground. Radioactive dating is applicable enough of the time reconstruct a relatively reliable history.>And yet the graphs have been altered over time to exaggerate warming.
No they haven't. This is a denialist lie.>Ah but this time, the predictions are going to be true.
It's not hard to predict that rapidly changing the climate is probably going to have negative effects. Once again, this is based on the paleontological and geological records, and even some events of depletion or extinction in the era of humans. But of course, you reject any knowledge gained from paleontology or geology as "made up stories" so there's not much point in trying to convince you of those facts.
Stuff like "the ice caps will be gone in five years" is indeed hyperbolic, and inadvisable to even say considering how relentlessly denialists will bring up only the most hyperbolic of predictions as bogus evidence of an AGW conspiracy.>The only people I see panicking are the brainwashed public - where are the actual climate scientists? Shouldn't they be the ones publicly pressuring the government?>How do you explain their absence in the spotlight?
Several climatologists have publicly given their opinions on both the science of AGW itself, and the threat that AGW likely represents. There are some of them who are publicly advocating for action. I imagine many of them are simply busy doing the work of science instead of playing politics.>What that tells me is they want to remain out of the public eye not because what the media claims they claim is true, but because it isn't, and if the scam fails they won't be held accountable.
It's so easy for you to make shit up without any justification.>inb4 evidence I don't understand is made up and AGW has no justification