A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
I've always hated this comparison because the two problems are just not the same, at all. CFCs were nowhere near as ubiquitous as fossil hydrocarbons, and CFCs had an essentially drop-in replacement, which fossil fuels do not. There's no non-hydrocarbon fuel that we can just replace for coal, natural gas, gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, etc. None that I'm aware of, anyway.
Tell me you are dumb without telling me you are dumb
Respectfully, the word should be stupid. Not dumb.They surely did not have a lack of words. They're stupid lol
I dunno man. Does believing the popular narrative really make you smart? Does disbelieving it really make you dumb? I don't think so.
He doesn't disbelieve, he just doesn't know
Knowing isn't required for either believing or disbelieving.
But knowing is required for not being dumb.
Something seems to have triggered you. Are you okay?
Don't be defensive, address my point instead.
You're not really making any meaningful points for me to interact with, and as such I have nothing in myself to defend. You seem to just be really cranky and hostile.
That's where your downvotes are coming from, by the way. You're not appealing to reason; you're more just being kind of a dick.
Well the fellow that I replied to implied that understanding is necessary for belief/disbelief. And then I said that it ain't so.
So you might try addressing that very definite and relevant point.
You don't have a point, other than you should just trust your gut or something?
I think that you are too dumb for this conversation.
Right? Stupid science bitch making up things like "chlorofluorocarbons" and "global cooperation."
But you people will believe anything that science guy says. All he has to do is say stuff like "chloroflurocarboins" and you get a hardon.
...there's a reason why we trust expertise. Don't be "Guy on Internet."
But you don't know. You just trust the talking head. You're going on pure theater.
You people have all the epistemological rigor of 12th century villagers.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgk8UdV7GQ0
It's fun that there's always a "meme" to reply to your nonsense with that fits because your argument in this situation is ridiculous and others have already created media to chastise it as such.
OF COURSE YOU DONT JUST BLINDLY BELIEVE EVERYTHING FRIENDO.
Expertise is a thing though, and in this case the topic has been thoroughly discussed and studied. Not sure why you picked this conversation to jump in with your "ah HA! You took it as faith, the same faith people put in the Bible! They didn't see the facts first hand and neither did you! So I have a Big Brain™ and you're just a sheep!"
Expertise is a thing? Really? Well now I have seen the light.
Thank you for stooping to aid this pitiful worm, in his confusion. You truly are a kind and generous soul.
But really. You people act like 12th century Christian zealots about this stuff.
I can offer some actual help.
You're trying to make a point, but you're going about it in literally the worst way. Right now all of your responses to pretty much everyone here are aggressive and insulting. That's 100% self serving. It makes you feel good but fails at what you're attempting to do. The first thing that happens when people are confronted with being insulted or being talked down to is to "close" their minds to what you're trying to say and to get defensive.
If after reading this your reaction is "that's a you problem," then you don't actually care about whatever point you were trying to make and you're just trying to make yourself feel smarter than everyone else.
My responses could have had more tact as well.
What is it that you are disputimg? The fact that CFC leads to Ozone depletion? Or the fact that it is possible for the person in the tweet to know that?
I'm disputing the confidence with which you people assert your secondhand truths and persecute unbelievers. You are behaving like cattle, herded by a glowing screen.
The vast majority of scientists who are experts in the field, all across the globe, all looking at the data, providing their evidence to each other to either challenge or support, all agreeing on what's happening.
It's not being a sheep to look at this and realize that what that group is saying is probably right and that you, as a layman, should probably accept what they are saying. That's actually the opposite of being a sheep, it's being objective and reasonable.
Yes, in the ideal world, the sheepherders are wise friends and behaving as a sheep (let's not quibble) is the winning strategy.
But I dislike sheep.
Right... so your issue isn't with the facts as they are stated. You too are not disputing those facts, am i right?
Gee, nobody can accuse you of belaboring the obvious.
Please whisper chlorofluorocarbons into my ear
I'm so hard for science right now.