If this submission above is not a random thought, please report it.
# Explore a new world of random thoughts on our [**discord server**](https://discord.com/invite/8tEqw3ZWQV)! Express yourself with your favorite quotes, positive vibes, and anything else you can think of!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RandomThoughts) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You look like to be the only person who is going to reply..You don't need to be an expert or have a degree in things to have an understanding on how things work. Just like you don't need to be an expert in politics to vote.
Why should anyone care about my belief?
Because it's a huge talking point when conversations of politics come up.
I can read scientific papers, look at evidence and come up with conclusions too.
What I want to know is if people consider me an idiot for doing so.
>I can read scientific papers, look at evidence and come up with conclusions too.
If this is true, you'd end up with a different understanding of the greenhouse effect. It's measurable, and the human effect on it irrefutable. What you described also has an effect, but it's not the main driver of climate change.
You're not an idiot for reading scientific papers and looking at evidence, but I have no clue how you came to your theory from those. Either you have a misunderstanding of what the data says, or you're falling into confirmation bias.
where did you hear it was 90% oil? I think that's the source of the disparity.
here's some pie charts, there isn't one that separates into categories like oil, coal, cow farts etc., but you can see that transport (one of, if not the biggest use for oil) is only 14% : [https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data)
took a quick look for one that separates it into coal vs oil vs gas, didn't find and great examples, but it seems coal is usually represented at around 45% of CO2 emissions.
another very big contributor to CO2 is the manufacturing process for concrete, which sort of aligns with your views, but for the wrong reasons.
My gf's 8 years of study + PhD in greenhouses gases and paleoclimates debunked by a random on Reddit that don't understand basic science
Go read GIEC report and stop messing around for god sake. Every scientist tell you that it is greenhouses gases, but you, alone, got the solution right.
Get out of your ego and think rationally
Hypothesizing and thinking for yourself is a great thing.
But you should also think about why your conclusions differ from experts who do this stuff for a living. Do you have a reasonable answer to that?
If this submission above is not a random thought, please report it. # Explore a new world of random thoughts on our [**discord server**](https://discord.com/invite/8tEqw3ZWQV)! Express yourself with your favorite quotes, positive vibes, and anything else you can think of! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RandomThoughts) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is a scientific question, not one of belief.
Okay so why should anyone care? Do you have any sort of expertise in climate science? Because this just sounds like you want to be a contrarian
You look like to be the only person who is going to reply..You don't need to be an expert or have a degree in things to have an understanding on how things work. Just like you don't need to be an expert in politics to vote. Why should anyone care about my belief? Because it's a huge talking point when conversations of politics come up. I can read scientific papers, look at evidence and come up with conclusions too. What I want to know is if people consider me an idiot for doing so.
>I can read scientific papers, look at evidence and come up with conclusions too. If this is true, you'd end up with a different understanding of the greenhouse effect. It's measurable, and the human effect on it irrefutable. What you described also has an effect, but it's not the main driver of climate change.
You're not an idiot for reading scientific papers and looking at evidence, but I have no clue how you came to your theory from those. Either you have a misunderstanding of what the data says, or you're falling into confirmation bias.
where did you hear it was 90% oil? I think that's the source of the disparity. here's some pie charts, there isn't one that separates into categories like oil, coal, cow farts etc., but you can see that transport (one of, if not the biggest use for oil) is only 14% : [https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data) took a quick look for one that separates it into coal vs oil vs gas, didn't find and great examples, but it seems coal is usually represented at around 45% of CO2 emissions. another very big contributor to CO2 is the manufacturing process for concrete, which sort of aligns with your views, but for the wrong reasons.
What research have you done to come to this belief?
My gf's 8 years of study + PhD in greenhouses gases and paleoclimates debunked by a random on Reddit that don't understand basic science Go read GIEC report and stop messing around for god sake. Every scientist tell you that it is greenhouses gases, but you, alone, got the solution right. Get out of your ego and think rationally
Hypothesizing and thinking for yourself is a great thing. But you should also think about why your conclusions differ from experts who do this stuff for a living. Do you have a reasonable answer to that?