>I don't have time to research your contrarion claims right now. My priors suggest it isn't a good use of my time. But I have to ask:
I think you've just proven my real point I was making.
>Why haven't the climate change researchers figured out what you have?
What happens when your research provides evidence or an argument that doesnt fit the story of climate change? You get labelled a climate denier and nobody will look at your data 'because it isnt a good use of their time' and the 'consensus' is that you are wrong. Then you never get funding again.
>Do they have rebuttals to these claims? If so, can you please link those rebuttals in the name of transparency?
I'm providing graphs and explaining the graphs. It's a fact that the world was 14celcius warmer in the eocene and had 10x the CO2. There's nothing to rebuttal unless you're going to go after my sources. I picked this on purpose because there is no rebuttal. Anyone reasonable should be able to look at my comments and reasonably look at the data.
>P.S. You are being downvoted for being wildly off topic as well as a bit inflammatory.
If you read my post again. I literally say it.
It's the toxic echo chambers which disallow an alternative viewpoint. I'm right on topic about explaining and showing the echo chamber. Climate change is also not the topic.
I challenge you dwaltrip to go into your usual circles and try to argue an alternative option. Devils advocate if you were; just dont tell them you're doing it.
Pick whatever subject you like and see how people react to you.
Saying "there is nothing to rebut" is not a response.
You are claiming that the consensus view of climate change has literally nothing to say in response to your points? I find that very hard to believe. Have you done your due diligence and actually searched for any rebuttals?
We're talking facts here; and this data is from climatologists and backed up by studies. The conclusions are also not mine.
What is there to rebut?
This isn't the point I was making. Climate change doesnt matter.
I was illustrating the point of the article. Nobody will want to discuss climate change if there is such hostility and alarmism. By definition creating climate deniers.
If the climate change folks are correct, and they very likely are correct, the point I was making was perfectly proven just now.
> We're talking facts here; and this data is from climatologists and backed up by studies. The conclusions are also not mine.
> What is there to rebut?
The rebuttal would look something like: "The data doesn't mean what you think it does due to X, Y, or Z." Or "Yes, this is true, but you are ignoring these other 10 aspects of the situation, which demand another interpretation". And so on.
One piece of data doesn't mean anything by itself. It needs to be put into context and interpreted. This is the hard part, of course.
> Nobody will want to discuss climate change if there is such hostility and alarmism.
The hostility and alarmism is only unjustified if they are wrong about the facts of the matter and how to interpret them, and if the contrarian arguments brought forth are ignored without good reason or in bad faith. So, the particular details do actually matter. It is about climate change. Or whatever other specific topic.
In my personal experience, the majority of contrarian arguments for climate change that I have seen have been put forth without due diligence or an understanding of how the argument fits into the broader picture. Which is what you would expect if the reality is that there isn't actually a strong opposing case.
I think you've just proven my real point I was making.
>Why haven't the climate change researchers figured out what you have?
What happens when your research provides evidence or an argument that doesnt fit the story of climate change? You get labelled a climate denier and nobody will look at your data 'because it isnt a good use of their time' and the 'consensus' is that you are wrong. Then you never get funding again.
>Do they have rebuttals to these claims? If so, can you please link those rebuttals in the name of transparency?
I'm providing graphs and explaining the graphs. It's a fact that the world was 14celcius warmer in the eocene and had 10x the CO2. There's nothing to rebuttal unless you're going to go after my sources. I picked this on purpose because there is no rebuttal. Anyone reasonable should be able to look at my comments and reasonably look at the data.
>P.S. You are being downvoted for being wildly off topic as well as a bit inflammatory.
If you read my post again. I literally say it.
It's the toxic echo chambers which disallow an alternative viewpoint. I'm right on topic about explaining and showing the echo chamber. Climate change is also not the topic.
I challenge you dwaltrip to go into your usual circles and try to argue an alternative option. Devils advocate if you were; just dont tell them you're doing it.
Pick whatever subject you like and see how people react to you.