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

[Devilinurear]

So the other 75% do. still seems like a majority still do.

 

[88m3]

 

[No_bammer_weed]

Conservatives are indistinguishable from wrestling heels. They commit these horrible acts, and then cackle in front of the audience taunting and ridiculing the decent and their rivals. They frequently use horribly twisted logic to justify their behavior.

 

[Hiphoplives4eva]

OP will say power but then ignore/rationalize egregious, Constitutional right violating power grabs by the right like the Patriot Act or the Latino witch hunt in Arizona.

Why are people so afraid of thinking for themselves, and willing to give their minds and power to groups like the Democrats and Republicans

why the fukk do you think ima Republican? Perhaps you should take your own advice and learn to think for yourself instead of simply believing the liberal narrative that anyone that isn't a Democrat is an ignorant Republican.

Hint: I'm an independent. If you care to know my views regarding the patriot act or immigration, just ask.

 

[Hiphoplives4eva]

And before you guys getting carried away with y your fake straw man arguments, no one is debating the veracity of the concept that the climate is changing, as climate change all the time (the reason we have meteorologists btw) The question is what is the etiology behind the change and whether or not the CO2 emissions theory is true.

 

[acri1]

Yeah, that's why I said he wouldn't be receptive anyway. It takes a staggering level of arrogance to look at the fact that 97% of climatologists--as strong as a consensus as you will get when it comes to a causative explanation of almost anything in science--and say that these learned people who spent years earning their Ph.D, conducting research, poring through data, and making appreciable contributions to science are not using the scientific method properly.

But let's ignore that for a second. Ignore the scientific consensus. Ignore the 34 scientific societies and academies globally who've reached the conclusions that climate change is real. fukk it, let's call that an appeal to authority fallacy and look at the actual science, then we can easily see that @Ed MOTHERfukkING G and others are making a grossly inaccurate claim, when they say it's just correlation and not scientifically proven. It's as scientifically proven as eating large amounts of foods high in trans fats lead to higher risk of heart disease, or an iron deficiency causes anemia. The process by which we conclude that climate change is happening is textbook scientific method.

Increases in CO2 and other greenhouses gases makes the atmosphere warmer by increasing radiative forcing, meaning the molecules trap heat radiation from exiting the atmosphere. That's basic chemistry. As we know, the Earth has gotten about a degree warmer in the past 200 years, and that has coincided with a 35% increase in atmospheric greenhouses gases, CO2 being the most prevalent. That's higher levels of atmospheric CO2 than we've ever seen in the 800,000 of data we can ascertain from ice cores, and looking at those ice cores, we can see the correlative overlap in CO2 levels and temperature.

So we know...

1. CO2 in particular, but other greenhouse gases as well trap heat from escaping Earth, increasing temperature.

2. There's been a massive increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases in the past 200 years due to industrialization, that shows a positive linear correlation with increasing temperature.

The rough hypothesis is "Is the increase in temperature due to increased CO2 levels?" It's falsifiable because we could look at the data and determine another cause for the increase in temperatures.

We have an extensive body empirical data on this from--archaeological, temperature measuring technology, glacial evidence, sea levels, tree rings, ice cores and more to build robust models with.

Climate change "skeptics" always fail because they can never answer the question, "If the massive increase in CO2 over the last 200 years, which we know for a fact increases temperature at least SOME is not causing the drastic temperature increase, what is?"

They always say something like "Well it's the natural processes of the Earth. The Earth is always changing and temperatures change over time." You don't really have to be a scientist to call bullshyt on that. Yes the Earth has natural processes, but everything has a cause and effect, so we need to hear what these phantom "Earth natural processes" are, and how they caused such a steep temperature increase, which happens to correlate neatly with a massive CO2 increase from industrialization. It's like these people don't realize that the scientists have already thought about and discovered through empirical evidence what increases temperature. And we know what does. Outside of massive plate tectonic shifts that haven't occurred in thousands of years, changes in climate are caused by:

1. Greenhouse gas levels

2. Solar variation

3. Atmospheric particulate, such as from volcanoes.

Well we have satellites monitoring the solar activity. There hasn't been any appreciable occurrences for the last 35 years or so. That's factored into the models. Particulate levels from volcanoes are monitored and factored in the models ("skeptics" sometimes claim that the brief dip in temp in the middle of last century proves greenhouse gases didn't cause the increase. But volcanic activity and sulphate aerosols used by people probably did, ironically an example of their undefined "natural processes," the volcano part anyway).

So scientifically we control for all variables, and guess what's left? GREENHOUSE GASES. So at the end of the day they're left with nothing but "I'm scientifically ignorant and/or paid/brainwashed by Fox News or fake think tanks set up by ExxonMobil."

Not trying to go at anyone, but this issue is too serious and too obviously true for all this pseudoscience and muddled up faux "skepticism" to still have a relevant voice.

Btw, this thread is stupid as fukk. I was hoping it would just get 1-starred and die. This dude really cited a poll of not climatologists, but fukking meteorologists. Yeah, let's get Al Roker's opinion on this. I think it's safe to say this meets @BarNone and @Brown_Pride 's Free Speech threshold of non-credible sources...even though only 25% of meteorologists are "skeptics," which is still much lower than the general populace. But asinine threads like this need to stay here so the real facts can be laid out. In a better world, this wouldn't be considered a debate any longer among lay people, just like it's not considered a debate among the scientific community.

You're wasting your time man...if someone thinks climate change is some kind of liberal conspiracy then their opinion is motivated by political ideology and they don't really believe in science anyway, so trying to use scientific arguments to convince them is a waste.

It's equivalent to using a logical argument to try to convince someone they should believe in logic.