Up to 25% of meterologists DONT believe in the Liberal climate change conspiracy..

[Type Username Here]

Well first its about the 'scientific opinion' which is an oxymoron in and of itself, science and opinion have no business together...i'll read your wikipedia link on though

Fair point on the title of the wiki. It should say evidence. There is plenty of it.

As for your shot at wikipedia, we really on that tip in 2014? It's been proven that Wikipedia, especially scientific wikis, are as sound a source you can go to today. Obviously less scrutinized or less important wikis get edited maliciously, but most are under tight restrictions and supervisions. They are closely monitored, all edits have to reference research (mostly peer reviewed), systems of checks and balances, democratic procedures, and up to date information.

Here's one study showing how vastly superior Wikipedia was in one discipline:
Cambridge Journals Online - Psychological Medicine - Abstract - Quality of information sources about mental disorders: a comparison of Wikipedia with centrally controlled web and printed sources

 

[Ed MOTHERFUCKING G]

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on climate change. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summarized:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level (for this conversation, agreed).[5]
Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[6]
Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[7] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[7] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.[7]
The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.[8]
The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).


Every report associated with connection man made activity and climate change outlines the statistical increase in temp, the effect its had...which are emperical and true...THEN states the increase of greenhouse gasses by man made behavior....THEN connects dots. That is not how science works. Even in the report your WIKIPEDIA link report cites, from 7 years ago, it can ONLY say a connection is LIKELY...and they are careful to say it like that,

I am not down with policty based on non scientific LIKELIHOODS

 

[Type Username Here]

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on climate change. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summarized:
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level (for this conversation, agreed).[5]
Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[6]
Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[7] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[7] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.[7]
The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.[8]
The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).


Every report associated with connection man made activity and climate change outlines the statistical increase in temp, the effect its had...which are emperical and true...THEN states the increase of greenhouse gasses by man made behavior....THEN connects dots. That is not how science works. Even in the report your WIKIPEDIA link report cites, from 7 years ago, it can ONLY say a connection is LIKELY...and they are careful to say it like that,

I am not down with policty based on non scientific LIKELIHOODS

95% Probability falls under likelihood. Ask any one who is a STEM major here about experimenting, taking into account data observed and recorded, and making a conclusion on your findings. That's how it's done. Then you let someone try to replicate your results in a objective manner independently.

If someone showed you evidence there was a 95% probability that you faced the likelihood of dying by stepping outside of your house today, I'd be willing to bet that you would stay inside.

 

[Type Username Here]

 

[Slystallion]

why is climate change a liberal conspiracy

what do they have to gain from it

not too informed on the latest to make a strong assessment but according to conservatives its about liberals wanting to control economic aspects and tax things like carbon credits and also to distribute government funds to the connected groups that advocate this sort of research and would be inclined to fudge numbers to get more money to continue research like climate gate...

However I personally believe most liberals actually feel they are looking out for the future and if there is corruption to that level it would be a few rouge scientists and top politicians and thats just human nature sociopath type stuff trying to use a cause to elevate themselves somehow

 

[Da King]

Its the SCIENTIFIC PROVEN connection between man's activity and climate change which has never been presented.

Many things in science aren't proven like evolution, but when there is 95+% consensus in the scientific community it's viewed as true or likely

 

[ch15x]

It wouldn't hurt to clean up the place a bit, regardless of which side you're on...

 

[bzb]

a better question would be why is the gop and conservative base so vehemently opposed to the idea that climate change could be man made considering the LARGE majority of scientists, meteorologists and evidence that support the theory?

 

[bigDeeOT]

What does your weatherman think about climate change? | Marketplace.org


So given the fact that a LARGE percentage of meterologists don't believe in the man made climate change theory, what do you all think? Are all these meterologists (which includes Weather channel founder John coleman) anti-science luddites?

What say you?

Meterologist? How about the percentage of scientists that specifically study climate change? What percentage of climate change scientists believe climate change is influenced by human factors? It is 95%

 

[bigDeeOT]

a better question would be why is the gop and conservative base so vehemently opposed to the idea that climate change could be man made considering the LARGE majority of scientists, meteorologists and evidence that support the theory?

Exactly. Its because there's a profit motive to deny climate change. If they accept it, they would have to take steps to prevent climate change in the future and that means spending money. They don't want to spend money on something that probably won't affect them in their lifetime.

 

[Robbie3000]

why is climate change a liberal conspiracy

what do they have to gain from it

Exactly. What do poor activists and scientists making $60,000 a year have to gain from a climate change conspiracy.

The only group that stands to really gain is the fossil fuel industry.

 

[FrostBite]

It wouldn't hurt to clean up the place a bit, regardless of which side you're on...

That's what I've always said. Even if you don't believe climate change isn't happening, what would it hurt to make an effort to be a little more "green"?

 

[sun raw]

Is there somebody in this thread really going "Climate change is just a THEORY, not a FACT"? Gravity's a theory too, jump out a window and test it.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Is the

The cause and effect just isnt proven.

If i believe all the stats

Yes the world is warming
Yes the carbon is increasing
Yes caps are melting
Yes weather is changing

But find me a REAL...SCIENTIFIC METHOD connection between those things...not CONSENSUS...not THEORY...not belief....SCIENTIFIC FACT...and i'll listen.

I could easily say

Yes earth is warming
Yes caps are melting
Yes the internet is getting faster by the day
Yes weather is changing

And i can show you graph after graph showing the rate of internet use and speed in the same direction as global temp...it DOES NOT prove a connection.

I could easily demonstrate the causation with empirical data (you could discover it for yourself by researching the data that leads to the conclusions as opposed to just reading the conclusions themselves too). But you wouldn't be receptive anyway so it's pointless.

 

[Broke Wave]

Is the

I could easily demonstrate the causation with empirical data (you could discover it for yourself by researching the data that leads to the conclusions as opposed to just reading the conclusions themselves too). But you wouldn't be receptive anyway so it's pointless.

Whenever someone starts talking about the epistimology of the word science and the scientific method (evolution is just a theory, this says just likely, there isn't a 100% consensus) you know they have some kind of bias and are uninterested in the substance of the discussion.

If I scientist tells you that according to his research you have a 95% chance of dying (pathologist), do you just brush it off as a likelihood? If a pathologist told you that if you personally continue to eat fatty foods you are likely to have a heart attack, do you dance around the word likely or do you act on it? Thousands of professional scientists with no proven agenda are giving their analysis of the data and we refuse to act on it.

There is rarely 100% scientific proof for anything. There isn't 100% proof that smoking gives you cancer but we accept it because there is irrefutable scientific evidence.