zlacker

Again this what I meant by we being too cooky. You're speaking about taking a water bottle, fill it with CO2 and use it to represent the entire planet.

>>travel+(OP)
Then go read the fucking reports https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/ https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6syr/pdf/IPCC_AR6_SYR_LongerReport.... you can get all the numbers and studies for free on the internet.

If you can't be convinced by simple explanations and if you can't be convinced by harder explanations then you are just spreading doubts and part of the problem.

edit: "what if we are wrong" fuck that shit, it's the same shit from the crowd of "but what if we develop interstellar travels and escape climate change consequences, haha gotcha" or "we'll just invent a carbon extractor in the next 10 years for the whole planet et voilà, ah!".

>>johnch+S2
If you can't have an argument without becoming toxic, please abstain from commenting. We're discussing here and I literally put a disclaimer in the beginning of the comment saying I'm not pro fossil fuels usage.

>>travel+(OP)
The experiment demonstrates a correlation between carbon dioxide and heating of air. Physics explains the reputable and causative mechanism behind the heating. This is the basis for estimating the heating effects at planetary scale of the amount of carbon dioxide (and other gases such as methane) released by humanity.

>>travel+84
What if he put a disclaimer in that he's not being toxic? Could he then continue commenting?

>>silver+87
So you want me to shut up just because I'm questioning common knowledge without being toxic to anyone?

>>Kineti+O4
Yes, I know that, what I'm questioning is the quantity of CO2 necessary to achieve that in earth atmosphere. Let alone be enough to cause it to overheat at this extent. Again, just questioning it not saying what's wrong or right here.

>>travel+84
> We're discussing here and I literally put a disclaimer in the beginning of the comment saying I'm not pro fossil fuels usage.

This disclaimer is not a free card to cast doubts on climate change science. Not being pro fossil fuels usage has nothing to do with questions about climate change science. The way you raise that disclaimer to doubt climate change science ? Well...

People have given you simple explanations you dismissed, I am giving you links to longer/harder explanations you are dismissing (I presume, since you don't follow on that).

If you think climate change science is wrong then bring up why you think so. "What if it's wrong" is rarely a useful basis by itself for a discussion on topics that have been studied in depths for decades.

>>travel+84
You can lead a horse to water, but can't make it drink.

Of course you're going to upset people by "feigning" ignorance and ignoring the mountains of supporting evidence provided.

You don't get to play the role of an obstinate child and continually ask "yeah but why" then feign innocence while ignoring the supporting evidence you requested.

>>travel+gb
I literally googled it for you and lo-and-behold:

- You Asked: If CO2 Is Only 0.04% of the Atmosphere, How Does it Drive Global Warming? https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2019/07/30/co2-drives-glob...

- How Exactly Does Carbon Dioxide Cause Global Warming? https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-...

- Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/...

>>travel+2a
You aren't questioning common knowledge. You're not even bothering with the evidence that provide answers to your questions.

You are simply arguing for argument's sake.

>>travel+2a
I asked a question, I did not tell you to shut up.

>>travel+84
He’s not acting toxic. You just proved to have a thin skin.