>>2181755> But when my thermometer agreesYour termometer can only measure the temperature and say if there is a difference.
What it can't do:
>Tell you the temp change is human caused or natural>tell you what temperature was 1000 or 20 000 years ago for or even longer ago for context>tell you how much temp swings are normalSee this is the problem. You take one point of fact like let say measuring temp or weight of human body.
But then you extrapolate conclusions you can't possibly prove or disprove such as
>oh we are getting more fat, it's due to X foodI'm not going to deny a temperature change in any direction, but the fact is that for decades people have been saying in 10 years all of the ice caps will melt and the human race will end if we don't do something.
At some point it was global warming, then when that was hard to push they just said "climate change".
More blanked term that essentially says any change, proves us right.
My point is that you are selectively remembering what was said over the decades and how the story always promises shit but then goes back on it.
The utter ease with which it is to manipulate people these days but simply omiting data and context that disagrees with your point and present muh science that only backs up your point is laughable.
And when ever anybody is like: Well hold up, isn't there more data to this, what about these things and that and...
people inevitably freak out because you are essentially saying their religion is not real and you are a heretic.
I personally don't know what actually is, but I have seen enough conflicting data and opinions to know that the science is not "settled" that we don't know for sure.
All I can say for certainty is that I don't know.
Yet I see people being emotional and zelots on the matter of "the science is settled, look what the mainstream tells us, authority is never wrong, nothing is ever used for their own gain, it's all objective an unbiased"
It's just so tiresome.
