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

[Ed MOTHEREFFING G]

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.

that is a compelling argument, fair enough. I think the correlation is stronger than that of man made climate change however.

 

[Broke Wave]

that is a compelling argument, fair enough. I think the correlation is stronger than that of man made climate change however.

To be honest it probably is but I think you know what I'm trying to say.

The biggest selling point on this man made climate change issue for me is that the things that lead to man made climate change according to 95% of scientists, also lead to tangible short term and long term immediate damage to our enviroment and lives according to 100% of scientists.

Petrochemical plants giving people cancer near their homes

Pipelines bursting and causing all types of fukkery

Emissions causing fog and respiratory diseases

Deforestation causing... a million terrible things

Water pollution causing droughts and starvation

Literally so many things I can go on and on about that are fukking us up right now that scientists say also lead to man made climate change. Even if there was no man made climate change, we have to address immediate issues because they're just as pressing. There's no loss by having us live in a cleaner sustainable world.

 

[The Real]

This is verbal trickery. People hear "meteorologist" and think "they study weather, they must know what they're talking about" when actually the relevant field here is climatology. Meteorologists study SHORT-TERM weather patterns on the order of a few weeks, not centuries. In fact, that's literally the difference between meteorology and climatology, which specifically studies long-term weather changes.

Same way you got bullshyt physicists and chemists propping up Intelligent Design and Creationism. It's not their field.

 

[Liquid]

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

was hoping someone responded to him with this before I did.

 

[bigDeeOT]

This is verbal trickery. People hear "meteorologist" and think "they study weather, they must know what they're talking about" when actually the relevant field here is climatology. Meteorologists study SHORT-TERM weather patterns on the order of a few weeks, not centuries. In fact, that's literally the difference between meteorology and climatology, which specifically studies long-term weather changes.

Same way you got bullshyt physicists and chemists propping up Intelligent Design and Creationism. It's not their field.

Thanks for the voice of reason.

 

[Fervid]

I had Calc courses with a handful of aspiring meteorologists, and all of them were complete jesus freaks.
I'm surprised the percentage isn't higher.

 

[ADevilYouKhow]

25% IS A LOT, BROTHER!

 

[Rocket Scientist]

Crazy

 

[WEED]

#CLIMATEGATE

 

[Serious]

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.

I already called his bluff


Might as well drop this too:

 

[Camile.Bidan]

Solar activity heads for lowest low in four centuries - environment - 01 November 2013 - New Scientist

Solar output may decline, and global warming may counteract that.

Either way Climate change will come its inevitable. The earth is dynamic. We lived through multiple ice-ages as a species. We can handle anything. Just gotta shave off those weaklings and we'll be alright.

 

[WEED]

 

[WEED]

 

[WEED]

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

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.

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.