I don’t think climate change is a hoax. But from what I hear the major cause for it being carbon dioxide alone is not really true. Now, I can’t remember what evidence there was, so please, a grain of salt. But I do trust the person who said it, so, when I have more time in life I intend to find out more. But it’s not like I can do anything to revert the misinformation at this point, should it turn out to be a hoax. The media has already cemented it, and any scientists going against the grain today will lose all credibility, because “the science is done” on this (even though that is very unscientific in and of itself).
That’s why no scientist ever said the cause is carbon dioxide alone. Anybody who says that to sow distrust in the scientific community is the one that is not trustworthy.
Yes, no, you’re right. What I meant to say was that the status quo is that carbon dioxide is the dominant cause for global warming.
That’s what I’ve been shown not to be the case. My source has been plowing through a lot of scientific books and publications, which I have not, so this is only hearsay unfortunately.
You don’t lose credibility for going against the grain, you become a superstar… You just have to have compelling evidence.
All the cases I’ve seen of people who complain about this aren’t being ridiculed for ‘revealing the truth’, but for doing shoddy research and sticking by it.
My source has definitely done proper research into the scientific results, bypassing all mass media. So I trust them for now. But obviously I have a lot of my own research to do.
I don’t think climate change is a hoax. But from what I hear the major cause for it being carbon dioxide
aloneis not really true. Now, I can’t remember what evidence there was, so please, a grain of salt. But I do trust the person who said it, so, when I have more time in life I intend to find out more. But it’s not like I can do anything to revert the misinformation at this point, should it turn out to be a hoax. The media has already cemented it, and any scientists going against the grain today will lose all credibility, because “the science is done” on this (even though that is very unscientific in and of itself).That’s why no scientist ever said the cause is carbon dioxide alone. Anybody who says that to sow distrust in the scientific community is the one that is not trustworthy.
Yes, no, you’re right. What I meant to say was that the status quo is that carbon dioxide is the dominant cause for global warming.
That’s what I’ve been shown not to be the case. My source has been plowing through a lot of scientific books and publications, which I have not, so this is only hearsay unfortunately.
You don’t lose credibility for going against the grain, you become a superstar… You just have to have compelling evidence.
All the cases I’ve seen of people who complain about this aren’t being ridiculed for ‘revealing the truth’, but for doing shoddy research and sticking by it.
Well that’s comforting.
My source has definitely done proper research into the scientific results, bypassing all mass media. So I trust them for now. But obviously I have a lot of my own research to do.