My communications studies professor unironically had an example presentation showing why global warming isn't human caused. How can I prove him wrong? He used the IPCC hockey stick model saying it was false.
Don't even bother trying OP it's useless.
>communications studies
Those still exist? I thought they were a fad that died down in the 90s.
>>7663796
Don't even bother. He's in a meme field. Such people are beneath us.
>>7663796
There's a reason why most people don't bother to argue with flat earthers. It's the same reason why you shouldn't waste your time on this person. There is no logical argument you can use to win them over. They're damaged. Consider your professor's ramblings to be funny entertainment.
communication studies isn't science; it's marketing. not even just a meme field, but a forced meme field. that professor at the Mizzou protest who was caught on camera calling for students to rough up a journalist? yup, she's a communications prof.
what did he say made it false? did he put up a slide showing that things were warmer ~600kya? if so, point out that it's not the temperatures that are unprecedented, but rather the rate of warming in the absence of natural forcings towards warming. or did he repeat the critique of the statistical methodology used by Mann et al. as articulated by McIntyre and McKitrick? (the one claiming that the methodology used would turn random noise into a hockey stick.) because McIntyre and McKitrick are a businessman and an economist, not statisticians or climatologists, and the statistical errors were minor. also, Mann had since moved on to a different methodology that returned the same general results.
So correct me if I'm wrong, but the reason that the earth is warming is because with the excess of greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere more of the suns radiation isn't getting reflected back out?
Is this because carbon dioxide doesn't reflect the suns radiation but rather let's it pass through it
>>7665518
its not about radiation its heat
carbon dioxide is a heavy molecule
the heat stays in the atmosphere cooking the planet
look at venus
atmosphere is like 99% carbon dioxide
the molecules stay bonded to the planet because carbon dioxide cant reach escape velocity on venus gravity
the result is a world that is 900F
>>7665518
I've never known the details fore sur, explanations for global warming are rubbish and people wonder why some people disbelieve.
I assume the case though is that carbon dioxide lets visible light in, which becomes heat, then that heat becomes infrared, and the carbon dioxide traps the infrared.
>>7665764
It would be great if you actually knew what you were talking about though.
>>7665764
Not even him but anon is right. Introduce carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, things heat up. This is basic science here.
>>7665764
>this is bullshit
How else do you explain Venus's thick atmosphere despite not having a magnetic field?
global warming is caused by anger.
the human mind has a dialectic relationship with the planet.
why would, in times of turmoil, intellectuals call for a climate change in Paris? Of all things?
>>7665829
The post didn't explain anything. It just said
>Carbon Dioxide is heavy
>The heat stays in lol
It did not explain where the heat comes from and why it stays in.
