Originally Posted by cdcfly
I've noticed that it's more the folks that side with Greta that get so triggered when they feel their line of thinking is questioned.
It bothered me so much that you'd accuse Greta of being hard headed that I spent an hour thinking about "How do I explain the scientific method." So,,,,,
You and a buddy walk into a room that contains a machine that spits out a ball every time you push a button. You are told that the machine contains 100 balls. After 99 balls come out all red your buddy with no basis of knowledge bets you $100 that the last ball is green. All triggered up
you ask him, "what makes you think it is green!?!?" Well, he says, "all the other balls were red." , you say, "why green?, why not blue or yellow in which case I still win?" He say, "Well, I like green." Would you take up your buddies bet of $100? I think I'd try to raise the bet to a $1000 that the last ball is not green. Why you ask me, well because I'm a scientist.
And no!!!!, I won't tell you what color the last ball turned out to be.
When it comes to climate science you really are down to the last few balls in the machine and so far they've all been red. Have I seen all the red balls? No, but I promise you that 100's of people looked at each ball to confirm it was red. That is called peer reviewed science.
That is why I, we get triggered
up. It is not an opinion, it is science. The red ball is:
Climate change is happening now.
It is caused by green house gases.
The planets is not going to respond kindly.