So, for example, if I ask someone how many neutrinos are released when U235 is split in a fission reaction it means that fission is fake and bullshit if they don't know?
Are they a nuclear physicist?
Doesn't matter. That's the thing about facts: it doesn't matter whether anyone knows about them or not, they're still facts. Fission is a real thing whether a nuclear physicist knows about it or not.
That doesn't mean human caused global warming is real and the activist who make that claim not understanding the basic science they claim proves this doesn't help their cause.
You doubled down. Which was fuking retarded.
Life lesson. If you make a statement which is so easily refuted you must accept that your argument was flawed.
Adapt and grow
So your argument is, if that person is telling you too many neutrinos are released when U235 is split and we need to stop it. And then they say the way we do that is criple the economy, tax people and send it to some fund in Europe, and prevent people from eating meat. A logicial question to that response is wow how many neutrinos is too much? And they say "I don't know". So you say how many are released when U235 is split and again they say "I'm not a scientist I don't know". Are you really going to take them seriously?
Your analogy is faulty. The question wasn't "how much CO2 in the atmosphere is too much." The question was "do you know much CO2 there is in the atmosphere."
It's not my analogy it's OPs. Secondly, it's spot on. Thirdly to address your statement specifically I said this, "So you say how many are released when U235 is split and again they say "I'm not a scientist I don't know"."
It’s just exposing one part of the huge lie which is global warming. Don’t be a faggot. That’s a highly specific thing. If you were these faggots who care so much about CO2 emissions you’d know something basic like the ratio considering that’s the crucial metric they’re using. Everyone is retarded.
What an "activist" knows has nothing to do with the huge lie. It's completely irrelevant.
That is an excellent logical response.
What you're arguing is that Nuclear physicists are aware of a problem that they can't communicate and need to outsource out (to what are actually volunteers) to people that are Professional Loud Mouths to spread the word and make our lives hell.
Edit: Without actually informing us, mind you.
I'm arguing no such thing. I'm arguing that a person's knowledge of x has no bearing on the truth of x.
It's a world stage debate, right
So challenging the speaker is a means to drive the ball forward for that side.
The burden of proof is on these people trying to ruin our lives.
If all they have to offer us is people that are experts in how to manipulate popular opinion, then it must not be that serious.
Well if you asked the person who is the expert in the matter and asking you to give up your finances saying it is a problem, they damn well better know.
Well if you asked the person who is the expert in the matter and asking you to give up your finances saying it is a problem, they damn well better know.
Well then, let's see someone try this on a climatologist instead of some retarded activist.
That's the point. Don't go on the media circuit claiming gloom and doom and how everyone must change to fit your narrative, but then know nothing about what you are talking about.
(post is archived)