Separate names with a comma.
Consensus is not science. Man made climate change is impossible to prove. In a scientific study you must remove what is thought to be the cause then study the results. Man is thought to be the cause. How do you remove Man?
That is what the higher power is for, Mother Nature takes care of her own and you have no control over it!
Finally, it's making sense to me now. I never thought about the money incentive . Follow the money trail. My bet is, it goes through political pockets.. and many people follow like sheep..........MO
Follow the money. Look at who stands to gain from this. If a scientist relies on Government funding to keep his/her bills paid, the ones with no integrity will shape and shift the stats to reflect what their employers want to hear.
The weather/climate Business ( note the capital B) started in the 50's. Pentagon and USSR were trying to figure out how to control the weather. Pentagon hired a bunch of scientists to effect the weather. The Pentagon gave up on the project so the scientists were scrambling for a new funding. The ice age theory moved on to global warming to climate change. It's about money and control. Someone else posted this.
Thats really really good!
You misread. I am with the consensus of scientists. The people who use the scientific method. They know more than me. Their models (even those from 30 years ago) seem to do a pretty good job of predicting the present (future for them). Yellow are data that did not exist at the time the model was run. The model is based on predictions of green house gas burdens and much of that was added by us. I find that kind of compelling. That is an observation. Following the money is a good point. Money is the motivation of the industrial complex and the POTUS, but science is motivated by understanding, hypothesis development and testing. If they found evidence to support something else, they have a chance to become famous because they overturn the hypothesis. Climate science is mature and done by careful people, who think and are objective. I don't expect to convince the deniers among you, but I will continue to stand up for science, knowledge, and doing things that are responsible.
Why did the last ice age end? Global temperature fluctuations, that’s why. Been happening since long ago and it will continue to happen. Trying to base climate change off 100 years worth of data is pointless in my opinion.
The question of which side is right. The answer is that humans are so full of themselves to believe that we have control over anything. When the planet has had enough, it will shake us off like fleas and start over again. We are purely a self important animal that hasn't learned our place.
Of course there are natural variations in climate. That has never been questioned. In fact, it provides the basis for the hypotheses and much of what we know. The models are calibrated with data but based on fundamental principles. The models also seem to fit many of the subsequent observations quite well. And of course humans can have an effect. The question is how big. Is it big enough to be seen and explain the change. That is where the models and more recent observations are relevant. The science strongly suggests a role for humans. It is hubris to assume that we cannot cause the change, just as it is hubris to assume that we must cause the change. Science checks and tests and supports the hypothesis that humans have had an effect. It also maps out predictions and those do not look good.
THEY can’t even predict the next days weather after over 100 yrs!
I thought this was a meme thread. Enough with the climate conference.