What in the actual fuck are you talking about? The greenhouse effect has been known and proven for DECADES. It is absolutely verified fact that carbon traps heat and warms the planet. Wtf are you talking about?????
"actual" gives you away as a clueless millennial.
Wow, you're REEEAALY into strawman arguments. You've just done it again (you might want to look it up), as evidenced by the fact that I never made any claim regarding the greenhouse effect. You should probably listen and think more instead of trying to be both sides of an argument. In fact I've never taken any position on this board regarding the topic, so you might want to work on your reading comprehension. I've only pointed out that your OP is nonsense;
Here's what I AM talking about:
Example: Nutrition
At some point in the 70's/80's the notion that "fat makes you fat" and "fat causes heart disease". It naturally followed that commonsense nutrition dictated that fat should be eliminated/minimal in a healthy diet. Carbs were promoted in place of fat and the food pyramid published by the FDA (still today) shows that the majority of our diet should be made up of bread/grains.
There was no credible science to back up these sweeping conclusions and yet they became the accepted dogma to the point that opposing viewpoints (Dr. Atkins theories) were vilified and mocked and the dissenters treated like pariahs. Now, when it comes to nutrition and diet, unlike physics or engineering, this topic typically devolves into religious-like ridiculousness. The worst thing about it imo is that doctors and nutritionists should understand the scientific method and should always look to it, and use it, to prove/disprove any particular claim in order to find the truth. They, of all people, should know better than to rely on popular opinion. They failed en masse. Science doesn't care about your opinion. Only in the last couple decades have "alternative opinions" been given any open-minded consideration, after conducting & publishing actual scientific studies. Why were so many professionals so easily cow-towed into blindly accepting unscrutinized/unchallenged dogma that is now proven to be false? The arrogance of people with no credible scientific proof can be astounding, and again, very "religious" in nature. To challenge the orthodoxy becomes a crime in itself. This is the real danger here, and it's the same dynamic w/ regard to the GW debate. Just the flagrant use of the loaded McCarthy-like term "denier" that we've seen for years and that is thrown around & used as a weapon, is troubling enough. Your unhinged response is further evidence.
Bottom line: ANY position worth defending should be able to withstand honest rigorous scrutiny.
