the country bumpkins that try to bait me do dis-engage but only until someone like you with a bit of "scientific jargon" pops up to reignite their fuses.
then they explode into another bout of "we`ve got him this time"
they think i`m a political animal that needs taking down so they`ll always come back for more- don`t waste your time on them, they`re in a cult, they see themselves on a mission to eradicate "wrong think"
i`m open to being educated - school me, don`t just link rubbish like Carl Sagan who is a z-list author of tosh and that Mickey Mouse "carbon curve" piffle.
you do know the famous "hockey-stick" graph was debunked ages ago don`t you.
if you think the simpletons in this thread can educate me then fine but first they`ll have to understand that the Earth has vast cycles and that plants absorb co2 meaning the more plants/trees there are the more co2 absorbed.
anyone with half a brain knows we need to stop habitat destruction for quite a few reasons.
talking of money and making millions- who pays the "climate scientists" and would they be out of a job if they didn`t follow the narrative
You see the problem here don't you? If you claim a priori that you don't believe in MSM or a given source like Carl Sagan (who, along with David Attenborough, has done more to inspire millions of people into science--what exactly have you done along these lines?) then no matter what evidence you are faced with you will always retreat into something along the lines of "I don't believe it" "they are part of a money-making conspiracy" "peer-reviewed research means nothing" etc. etc. You can see why this is tiresome, yes?
Because I can predict the future, let's try this: You write
"you do know the famous "hockey-stick" graph was debunked ages ago don`t you" and this statement is simply untrue. This graph has withstood both scientific scrutiny (which counts for a lot) as well as various idiots from Libertarian think-tanks and other non-expert climate deniers with youtube accounts (which doesn't count for anything). The graph reflects a robust temperature trend that is best explained by human "forcing." The latest version combines several independent studies that all speak to the same trend of human-induced climate forcing. This is reported here, in the journal PNAS:
There are several other independent peer-reviewed sources that can speak to the robustness of the hockey-stick graph, while, on the other hand, there are very few peer-reviewed sources that argue against it. Since you brought up the hockey-stick graph, what expertise do you personally draw from to make a conclusion about this robustness of this study? And what do you make of it more generally?
www.livescience.com
