Global Warming is the blame for everything

[Mushroom]

I think one of the things that makes me laugh the most is that absolutely everything today seems to be blamed on Man Made Global Warming.

Hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, volcanoes, absolutely everything. And I am sure that making claims like that is a great way to get funding and scare kids, but can such claims be real?

Global melting is causing earthquakes and volcanos to erupt.

If the load above the magma chamber is reduced, the magma can rise faster. This is precisely what happens when glaciers melt as a result of human-induced climate change. When a glacier decreases in thickness or width, a magma reservoir at depth can rupture and magma can rise to the surface. Especially if the volcano is already close to eruption!

https://www.polytechnique-insights....ll-also-have-an-impact-on-volcanic-eruptions/

Climate change is causing more earthquakes.

CSU geoscientists analyzed the Sangre de Cristo Mountains in southern Colorado, a range with an active fault along its western edge. Their results indicate that the fault had been held in place under the weight of glaciers during the last ice age, and as the ice melted, slip along the fault increased. This suggests that earthquake activity along a fault could increase as glaciers recede.

CSU study links climate change and earthquake frequency - Warner College of Natural Resources

Now those are two examples that are really raising a red flag with me. And for several reasons.

To start with, exactly how many major earthquake regions and active volcanoes are where the ice sheets were? That is just to start. Look at every single one of the regions on the planet that has active volcanos and earthquakes. Then compare that with where the ice sheets actually were.

And this is where a lot of the claims simply start to break down. And then add in this little absolute fact. How in the hell are they replicating these claims, or validating them?

In most of the world, there is really very limited evidence for much going back more than a century or two. And we sure as hell can't jump back to the LGM and see exactly what earthquake and volcanic activity was like. Or even see what the activity was like during the last interglacial.

This is why myself and so many point at the patently "Bad Science" in most claims on Global Warming. And correlation is not causation.

Now I have been studying geology for decades now, and have a well above average understanding of how earthquakes and volcanos operate. And for both of those geological events, they are far more likely to happen along Western North America and Eastern Asia. And this has nothing to do with the ice age or glaciers, it's entirely because of plate tectonics and both of those are active subduction zones.

That is why in the US, every single one of the active stratovolcanoes is north of San Francisco. Every Single One. There is not a single active stratovolcano south of there. Yet, people still believe that a volcano can pop up in LA because a movie told them so.

The very first logical challenge to people who make claims like this absolutely must be "Where are you obtaining the data?"

How in the hell can they prove that earthquakes and volcanos are more common now than during the LGM? How in the hell can they even prove that compared to 200 years ago? Here is the thing, they can't. It's absolutely impossible. And how can they explain that most of these events are occurring in places that have not had ice sheets in hundreds of millions of years (if ever)?

This all goes absolutely against science, because if you can't validate, document, and replicate your claims, it is not science. At absolute best it's a theory, nothing more and nothing less.

One thing I have learned in studying geology, is that there is a hell of a lot that simply can't be explained. And while geologists will often have no problem proposing a theory, they absolutely know to not "write it in stone" and state that something absolutely is the cause.

What caused the Great Unconformity that is seen almost globally but especially in the walls of the Grand Canyon? Why did the Pacific Plate not subduct under the North American Plate some 30 mya and instead created a strike-slip fault? Why did Washington-Oregon-Idaho see massive flood basalts, while California did not? Why did a supervolcano suddenly pop up in South-Eastern California 760,000 years ago? Why did large amounts of molten copper rise up with volcanic plumes in the Great Lakes area, and molten gold rise up in volcanic plumes in California? Why are diamonds common in explosive volcanic areas in South Africa, but not in North America?

Ask any geologist questions like those, and if they are honest they will give their own variation of the popular theories. And then end it with throwing up their hands and going "But ultimately, we just don't know".

But more and more I am seeing tons of shady and questionable "science" linked to "Global Warming". And here is a key part of the Replication Problem. We know for a fact that this is not the first Interglacial. There have been at least five of them in the past 3 million years. Were these cases of increased vulcanism and earthquakes seen in previous interglacials?

Where in the hell is the baseline for even attempting to determine such claims? Can somebody tell me the frequency of eruptions and earthquakes over 3 million years ago before the ice age cycle even began?

Without any of that kind of data, why should anybody take any of these claims even remotely seriously? Yet, people do. And it makes me sad at the level of anti-science they are believing. Because in the end, when absolutely everything is blamed on something, one must logically reject that very claim. And blaming everything on "Global Warming" is no different than blaming everything on "Witches" and "Heretics".

 

[Mushroom]

And a caveat for anybody who takes the time to read this, consider the following.

Look at every single active volcano in North America. Every single one. Saint Helens, Hood, Rainier, Great Sitkin, Lassen, Augustine, all of them. Feel free to look at all of them on a map, then compare that to the map I posted above showing the extent of the ice sheets in the LGM (Last Glacial Maximum).

Not a single one of those volcanos was below the ice sheets in the LGM. Not. A. Single. One.

This is why this is only a theory, and one that can in no way ever be replicated. The only one that was possibly under the ice sheets was the recent eruption of Sarychev in Kamchatka, Russia recently. In fact, that is the only active volcano I can think of that was once under an ice sheet. Not counting of course the multiple active volcanos we know about in Antarctica which are still under ice sheets.

 

[1srelluc]

I guess that 40 degree temp. swing we are getting tonight will be due to "Mah Global Warming"....,Or just maybe from a cold front blowing in on the heels of a few showers.

Talk about your hoaxes.

 

[shockedcanadian]

I think one of the things that makes me laugh the most is that absolutely everything today seems to be blamed on Man Made Global Warming.

Hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, volcanoes, absolutely everything. And I am sure that making claims like that is a great way to get funding and scare kids, but can such claims be real?

Global melting is causing earthquakes and volcanos to erupt.


https://www.polytechnique-insights....ll-also-have-an-impact-on-volcanic-eruptions/

Climate change is causing more earthquakes.


CSU study links climate change and earthquake frequency - Warner College of Natural Resources

Now those are two examples that are really raising a red flag with me. And for several reasons.

To start with, exactly how many major earthquake regions and active volcanoes are where the ice sheets were? That is just to start. Look at every single one of the regions on the planet that has active volcanos and earthquakes. Then compare that with where the ice sheets actually were.

And this is where a lot of the claims simply start to break down. And then add in this little absolute fact. How in the hell are they replicating these claims, or validating them?

In most of the world, there is really very limited evidence for much going back more than a century or two. And we sure as hell can't jump back to the LGM and see exactly what earthquake and volcanic activity was like. Or even see what the activity was like during the last interglacial.

This is why myself and so many point at the patently "Bad Science" in most claims on Global Warming. And correlation is not causation.

Now I have been studying geology for decades now, and have a well above average understanding of how earthquakes and volcanos operate. And for both of those geological events, they are far more likely to happen along Western North America and Eastern Asia. And this has nothing to do with the ice age or glaciers, it's entirely because of plate tectonics and both of those are active subduction zones.

That is why in the US, every single one of the active stratovolcanoes is north of San Francisco. Every Single One. There is not a single active stratovolcano south of there. Yet, people still believe that a volcano can pop up in LA because a movie told them so.

The very first logical challenge to people who make claims like this absolutely must be "Where are you obtaining the data?"

How in the hell can they prove that earthquakes and volcanos are more common now than during the LGM? How in the hell can they even prove that compared to 200 years ago? Here is the thing, they can't. It's absolutely impossible. And how can they explain that most of these events are occurring in places that have not had ice sheets in hundreds of millions of years (if ever)?

This all goes absolutely against science, because if you can't validate, document, and replicate your claims, it is not science. At absolute best it's a theory, nothing more and nothing less.

One thing I have learned in studying geology, is that there is a hell of a lot that simply can't be explained. And while geologists will often have no problem proposing a theory, they absolutely know to not "write it in stone" and state that something absolutely is the cause.

What caused the Great Unconformity that is seen almost globally but especially in the walls of the Grand Canyon? Why did the Pacific Plate not subduct under the North American Plate some 30 mya and instead created a strike-slip fault? Why did Washington-Oregon-Idaho see massive flood basalts, while California did not? Why did a supervolcano suddenly pop up in South-Eastern California 760,000 years ago? Why did large amounts of molten copper rise up with volcanic plumes in the Great Lakes area, and molten gold rise up in volcanic plumes in California? Why are diamonds common in explosive volcanic areas in South Africa, but not in North America?

Ask any geologist questions like those, and if they are honest they will give their own variation of the popular theories. And then end it with throwing up their hands and going "But ultimately, we just don't know".

But more and more I am seeing tons of shady and questionable "science" linked to "Global Warming". And here is a key part of the Replication Problem. We know for a fact that this is not the first Interglacial. There have been at least five of them in the past 3 million years. Were these cases of increased vulcanism and earthquakes seen in previous interglacials?

Where in the hell is the baseline for even attempting to determine such claims? Can somebody tell me the frequency of eruptions and earthquakes over 3 million years ago before the ice age cycle even began?

Without any of that kind of data, why should anybody take any of these claims even remotely seriously? Yet, people do. And it makes me sad at the level of anti-science they are believing. Because in the end, when absolutely everything is blamed on something, one must logically reject that very claim. And blaming everything on "Global Warming" is no different than blaming everything on "Witches" and "Heretics".

Someone posted on social media a large matrix graph of dots illustrating all of the pollution in the world over the last 20 years or something and how much Canada contributed to it and there was a single pixel in the top right corner relative to the total pollution. Yet, we are hurting our economy and making life expensive for citizens with repeated climate policies.

It's a racket for China and a few people making money selling carbon credits.

 

[Mushroom]

Talk about your hoaxes.

To me, this is far more about "Anti-Science". There have always been hoaxes, and always will be hoaxes. And in the end, a lot of them are pushed to get money. But the problem here is that they are perverting science to claim something which is 100% unprovable, and when looked at through the eyes of a skeptic make absolutely no sense.

And the funny thing is, this is not the only message board I have posted this in. I actually wrote this about two weeks ago. And I expect this to go like all the others. Almost deafening silence, because I have posted absolute facts and science, and they can't think of any way they can push their anti-science political agenda into it.

Unless they post so much anti-science themselves that it becomes painfully obvious to all that they have no science to back up their claims.

This is why I laugh at so many posts in what is supposed to be a "science" area. Myself and others will actually post things that deal with actual science. And the response is almost always science. But post anything that can even remotely be connected to "climate", and all the non-science lunatics jump out of the woodwork.

 

[Mushroom]

It's a racket for China and a few people making money selling carbon credits.

Want to see them really get bent out of shape?

Try and force them to use charts that remove the nonsensical "Per Capita" figures and actually deal with the emissions of China on an actual volume basis.

Any time somebody tries to push claims based on "Per Capita", it's almost guaranteed they are pushing an agenda.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Mt. Garibaldi and Erebus are good examples of volcanoes eruption in the ice field.

 

[jackflash]

I think one of the things that makes me laugh the most is that absolutely everything today seems to be blamed on Man Made Global Warming.

Hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, volcanoes, absolutely everything. And I am sure that making claims like that is a great way to get funding and scare kids, but can such claims be real?

Global melting is causing earthquakes and volcanos to erupt.


https://www.polytechnique-insights....ll-also-have-an-impact-on-volcanic-eruptions/

Climate change is causing more earthquakes.


CSU study links climate change and earthquake frequency - Warner College of Natural Resources

Now those are two examples that are really raising a red flag with me. And for several reasons.

To start with, exactly how many major earthquake regions and active volcanoes are where the ice sheets were? That is just to start. Look at every single one of the regions on the planet that has active volcanos and earthquakes. Then compare that with where the ice sheets actually were.

And this is where a lot of the claims simply start to break down. And then add in this little absolute fact. How in the hell are they replicating these claims, or validating them?

In most of the world, there is really very limited evidence for much going back more than a century or two. And we sure as hell can't jump back to the LGM and see exactly what earthquake and volcanic activity was like. Or even see what the activity was like during the last interglacial.

This is why myself and so many point at the patently "Bad Science" in most claims on Global Warming. And correlation is not causation.

Now I have been studying geology for decades now, and have a well above average understanding of how earthquakes and volcanos operate. And for both of those geological events, they are far more likely to happen along Western North America and Eastern Asia. And this has nothing to do with the ice age or glaciers, it's entirely because of plate tectonics and both of those are active subduction zones.

That is why in the US, every single one of the active stratovolcanoes is north of San Francisco. Every Single One. There is not a single active stratovolcano south of there. Yet, people still believe that a volcano can pop up in LA because a movie told them so.

The very first logical challenge to people who make claims like this absolutely must be "Where are you obtaining the data?"

How in the hell can they prove that earthquakes and volcanos are more common now than during the LGM? How in the hell can they even prove that compared to 200 years ago? Here is the thing, they can't. It's absolutely impossible. And how can they explain that most of these events are occurring in places that have not had ice sheets in hundreds of millions of years (if ever)?

This all goes absolutely against science, because if you can't validate, document, and replicate your claims, it is not science. At absolute best it's a theory, nothing more and nothing less.

One thing I have learned in studying geology, is that there is a hell of a lot that simply can't be explained. And while geologists will often have no problem proposing a theory, they absolutely know to not "write it in stone" and state that something absolutely is the cause.

What caused the Great Unconformity that is seen almost globally but especially in the walls of the Grand Canyon? Why did the Pacific Plate not subduct under the North American Plate some 30 mya and instead created a strike-slip fault? Why did Washington-Oregon-Idaho see massive flood basalts, while California did not? Why did a supervolcano suddenly pop up in South-Eastern California 760,000 years ago? Why did large amounts of molten copper rise up with volcanic plumes in the Great Lakes area, and molten gold rise up in volcanic plumes in California? Why are diamonds common in explosive volcanic areas in South Africa, but not in North America?

Ask any geologist questions like those, and if they are honest they will give their own variation of the popular theories. And then end it with throwing up their hands and going "But ultimately, we just don't know".

But more and more I am seeing tons of shady and questionable "science" linked to "Global Warming". And here is a key part of the Replication Problem. We know for a fact that this is not the first Interglacial. There have been at least five of them in the past 3 million years. Were these cases of increased vulcanism and earthquakes seen in previous interglacials?

Where in the hell is the baseline for even attempting to determine such claims? Can somebody tell me the frequency of eruptions and earthquakes over 3 million years ago before the ice age cycle even began?

Without any of that kind of data, why should anybody take any of these claims even remotely seriously? Yet, people do. And it makes me sad at the level of anti-science they are believing. Because in the end, when absolutely everything is blamed on something, one must logically reject that very claim. And blaming everything on "Global Warming" is no different than blaming everything on "Witches" and "Heretics".

Glow-ball Warming/Climate Change or whatever one wants to label the religion as, was laid to rest after the exposure of the statist left's climate fraud scheme called "climate-gate".

 

[Mushroom]

Mt. Garibaldi and Erebus are good examples of volcanoes eruption in the ice field.

Actually, there is still question if that region was under an ice sheet or not.

Feel free to look up any 10 maps of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet you want. And in that area of BC, you will find 10 different places where there was ice and it was ice free. At points it was covered that is true, but at other points it was not. Completely inconclusive, and not a realistic example.

And the most recent is 10-13,000 years ago, with previous at 220k and 260k years ago.

Oh, and you can discount any active volcanos on islands. Those would be surrounded by sea ice, not large amounts of ice sheets putting pressure on the ground. And Mt. Erebus is actually fairly old, about 1.3 million years old. And has been erupting fairly regularly for over 100 years, in roughly 14 year cycles. So once again, does not fit the claims.

 

[EMH]

Or even see what the activity was like during the last interglacial

ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica completely refute interglacial.

People who use "interglacial" are part of CO2 FRAUD, not opponents. They are "faux skeptics."

 

[Sunsettommy]

I have the book Fire and Ice and it shows that Garibaldi actually erupted through the then existing ice field and that part of the volcano was sitting on the ice when the big melt back occurred around 13,000 years ago when this interglacial period came in that caused a large collapse.

Thanks to you have ordered a good copy to replace my worn out copy as I had forgotten to replace it.

Mt. Erebus is draped under several glaciers that are active and on the active volcano thus it is indeed erupting in an ice field:

Fang Glacier​

77°29′S 167°06′E. A glacier on the west side of Fang Ridge, separating the old and new craters of Mount Erebus. Charted by Frank Debenham of the BrAE, 1910–13, and named by him in association with Fang Ridge.

Erebus Glacier​

Main article: Erebus Glacier
77°41′S 167°00′E. A glacier draining the lower south slopes of Mount Erebus, Ross Island, and flowing west to Erebus Bay where it forms the floating Erebus Glacier Tongue. Named in association with Mount Erebus by the British National Antarctic Expedition (BrNAE), 1901–04, under Scott.

Erebus Glacier Tongue​

Main article: Erebus Glacier Tongue
77°42′S 166°40′E. The seaward extension of Erebus Glacier from Ross Island, projecting into Erebus Bay where part of it is floating. Charted and named by the BrNAE under Scott, 1901-04.

Barne Glacier​

77°36′S 166°26′E. Steep glacier which descends from the west slopes of Mount Erebus and terminates on the west side of Ross Island between Cape Barne and Cape Evans where it forms a steep ice cliff. Discovered by the BrNAE, 1901–04, under Scott. Named by the British Antarctic Expedition, 1907–09, under Shackleton after nearby Cape Barne.

LINK

 

[Old Rocks]

And a caveat for anybody who takes the time to read this, consider the following.

Look at every single active volcano in North America. Every single one. Saint Helens, Hood, Rainier, Great Sitkin, Lassen, Augustine, all of them. Feel free to look at all of them on a map, then compare that to the map I posted above showing the extent of the ice sheets in the LGM (Last Glacial Maximum).

Not a single one of those volcanos was below the ice sheets in the LGM. Not. A. Single. One.

This is why this is only a theory, and one that can in no way ever be replicated. The only one that was possibly under the ice sheets was the recent eruption of Sarychev in Kamchatka, Russia recently. In fact, that is the only active volcano I can think of that was once under an ice sheet. Not counting of course the multiple active volcanos we know about in Antarctica which are still under ice sheets.

Iceland

 

[Mushroom]

Mt. Erebus is draped under several glaciers that are active and on the active volcano thus it is indeed erupting in an ice field:

Yes, but as it's an island, there is little "weight" as the ice surrounding it is over water.

And "glaciers" means little, as the newest glacier known on the planet is the one on Mount Saint Helens. And it's still growing. So long as conditions are right (primarily altitude), glaciers will grow on stratovolcanos fairly quickly. The one on St. Helens shocked a lot of people for how quickly it formed and how large it has grown. While still on a highly active volcano.

If talking about just glaciers, than a lot of the claims literally become cyclical. And even more nonsensical as magma chambers are between 1 and 10 kilometers deep. And are powered from even deeper in the crust, typically by yet another magma chamber even deeper, some 20-50 kilometers deep.

Exactly how deep do they think the pressure from a glacier affects things underground? And that effect would have to extend even deeper, as the actual magma that fuels an eruption actually forms significantly deeper, as in over 250 km deep or more. And when a volcano erupts, we are actually seeing the final stage of a journey for that magma that started thousands of years ago if not earlier.

In a way, it can be like the astronomers watching Betelgeuse. It is believed that will go supernova soon, and for all we know it could happen tomorrow. But if they do see that explosion tomorrow night, that is not when it happened. It happened over 530 years ago, we would only be seeing it now. In the same way, the process that starts the next eruption already happened long ago, it simply has not reached the surface yet.

 

[ReinyDays]

Climate is what we expect ...

Weather is what we get ...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Someone posted on social media a large matrix graph of dots illustrating all of the pollution in the world over the last 20 years or something and how much Canada contributed to it and there was a single pixel in the top right corner relative to the total pollution. Yet, we are hurting our economy and making life expensive for citizens with repeated climate policies.

It's a racket for China and a few people making money selling carbon credits.

AGW is based on religion, not science or economics.

 

[catatomic]

You guys need to watch Monty Python. Sheep's bladders may be used to prevent earth quakes.

But seriously I never thought earthquakes or volcanoes were due to greenhouse gases.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

I think one of the things that makes me laugh the most is that absolutely everything today seems to be blamed on Man Made Global Warming.

Hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, volcanoes, absolutely everything. And I am sure that making claims like that is a great way to get funding and scare kids, but can such claims be real?

Global melting is causing earthquakes and volcanos to erupt.


https://www.polytechnique-insights....ll-also-have-an-impact-on-volcanic-eruptions/

Climate change is causing more earthquakes.


CSU study links climate change and earthquake frequency - Warner College of Natural Resources

Now those are two examples that are really raising a red flag with me. And for several reasons.

To start with, exactly how many major earthquake regions and active volcanoes are where the ice sheets were? That is just to start. Look at every single one of the regions on the planet that has active volcanos and earthquakes. Then compare that with where the ice sheets actually were.

And this is where a lot of the claims simply start to break down. And then add in this little absolute fact. How in the hell are they replicating these claims, or validating them?

In most of the world, there is really very limited evidence for much going back more than a century or two. And we sure as hell can't jump back to the LGM and see exactly what earthquake and volcanic activity was like. Or even see what the activity was like during the last interglacial.

This is why myself and so many point at the patently "Bad Science" in most claims on Global Warming. And correlation is not causation.

Now I have been studying geology for decades now, and have a well above average understanding of how earthquakes and volcanos operate. And for both of those geological events, they are far more likely to happen along Western North America and Eastern Asia. And this has nothing to do with the ice age or glaciers, it's entirely because of plate tectonics and both of those are active subduction zones.

That is why in the US, every single one of the active stratovolcanoes is north of San Francisco. Every Single One. There is not a single active stratovolcano south of there. Yet, people still believe that a volcano can pop up in LA because a movie told them so.

The very first logical challenge to people who make claims like this absolutely must be "Where are you obtaining the data?"

How in the hell can they prove that earthquakes and volcanos are more common now than during the LGM? How in the hell can they even prove that compared to 200 years ago? Here is the thing, they can't. It's absolutely impossible. And how can they explain that most of these events are occurring in places that have not had ice sheets in hundreds of millions of years (if ever)?

This all goes absolutely against science, because if you can't validate, document, and replicate your claims, it is not science. At absolute best it's a theory, nothing more and nothing less.

One thing I have learned in studying geology, is that there is a hell of a lot that simply can't be explained. And while geologists will often have no problem proposing a theory, they absolutely know to not "write it in stone" and state that something absolutely is the cause.

What caused the Great Unconformity that is seen almost globally but especially in the walls of the Grand Canyon? Why did the Pacific Plate not subduct under the North American Plate some 30 mya and instead created a strike-slip fault? Why did Washington-Oregon-Idaho see massive flood basalts, while California did not? Why did a supervolcano suddenly pop up in South-Eastern California 760,000 years ago? Why did large amounts of molten copper rise up with volcanic plumes in the Great Lakes area, and molten gold rise up in volcanic plumes in California? Why are diamonds common in explosive volcanic areas in South Africa, but not in North America?

Ask any geologist questions like those, and if they are honest they will give their own variation of the popular theories. And then end it with throwing up their hands and going "But ultimately, we just don't know".

But more and more I am seeing tons of shady and questionable "science" linked to "Global Warming". And here is a key part of the Replication Problem. We know for a fact that this is not the first Interglacial. There have been at least five of them in the past 3 million years. Were these cases of increased vulcanism and earthquakes seen in previous interglacials?

Where in the hell is the baseline for even attempting to determine such claims? Can somebody tell me the frequency of eruptions and earthquakes over 3 million years ago before the ice age cycle even began?

Without any of that kind of data, why should anybody take any of these claims even remotely seriously? Yet, people do. And it makes me sad at the level of anti-science they are believing. Because in the end, when absolutely everything is blamed on something, one must logically reject that very claim. And blaming everything on "Global Warming" is no different than blaming everything on "Witches" and "Heretics".

I never paid much attention to geology but I'm pretty sure basic elementary science makes these claims complete bullshit. .

For the sake of this retarded argument lets say it's true. Volcano eruptions are a result of building pressures which cause an explosion, wouldn't all that ice cause larger explosions because the gases and lava build up more ?

Earthquakes happen in the oceans where pressures are way more than any ice sheets covering land ?

 

[catatomic]

Monty Python is bad because of babbling among other things

 

[Mushroom]

For the sake of this retarded argument lets say it's true. Volcano eruptions are a result of building pressures which cause an explosion, wouldn't all that ice cause larger explosions because the gases and lava build up more ?

And that is equally as valid of a hypothesis as the other one.

Yet people believe that global warming is causing it because they want to believe it is causing it.

This is why I laugh at so many claims. They are 100% unprovable, yet they believe them anyways.

 

[Mushroom]

You guys need to watch Monty Python.

No need to tell me that, I have been watching it for over five decades now.

I quite often compare a lot of "debates" in places like here with the Argument Clinic sketch.



Sadly, a lot of people believe debate is just like that. Somebody presents a side based on facts with references and data to back it up, and somebody else simply goes "You're wrong" and "I reject your facts".

Then they wonder why skeptics like myself reject their claims, and see it more as religion than science.