Oddbean

It’s not a belief. Throughout over a million years that humans have existed, the vast amount of warming has taken place over less than 200 years, in tandem with the advancement of industry, which is inconsistent with the theory of solar-caused climate disruption that takes place over exponentially longer time periods.

Ok mate, you’ve not answered my pretty basic questions. I’m trying to pin down exactly what you are arguing so I can debate in good faith rather than put words in your mouth. Not wanting to address those questions head-on goes against your arguments, not mine. You can’t claim a million years of humanity and then base historic records on fucking icecores because that’s all we’ve got before the advent of thermometers and widespread use thereof ~150 years ago. You’re mixing actual data with scientism. Too much of your arguments is based on such scientism. Models by experts. And none of it accounts for solar cyclicality.

The arguments I’ve heard seem to be that: (a) it isn’t happening at all (b) humans don’t play a role (c) it’s entirely a natural phenomenon (d) there is no solution These are contradictory, yet they are the most common denialist positions.

I wrote some long notes which were maybe hard to answer so I gave the benefit of the doubt and pulled it back to 2 concise questions with context and this is your response.. At this point, undoubtedly, you are the one moving the goalposts Daniel; not me. If you can’t answer basic questions and make a direct argument against the sun being the primary driver of climate change then I quite simply contend that you are beholden to a narrative that you haven’t fully explored yourself. Have you read this book?: nostr:note1kexprper82q0wlt3qcwcxazmv5348magqm2yn7u8vfak37alxa9qc8yncc If you haven’t then you don’t know any of the counterarguments to your position, no different to a shitcoiner arguing for their token without having done even basic research on Bitcoin. You have to know your oppositions arguments if you’re to make a solid case for your position and this thread had demonstrated you simply can’t. That doesn’t mean you’re wrong and I’m right, it does mean you can’t win an argument because you don’t know the other side of what you are actually arguing which means you refuse to actually engage things head-on. As a Bitcoiner this should be a red flag for yourself that you only have one side of the story and yet you’re here spruiking it rather than reading what your opposition says.