Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Snooze
It is not an assumption; there seems to be a significant amount of research supporting anthropogenic climate change. That is, it is not a hypothesis, it is a medium to strong theory.
Btw, the "97% of scientist say..climate change" is bogus. It is commonly quoted but it is a contrived number.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexeps...h=3896eb413f9f
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/...cientists-say/
Disclaimer: I do not have the knowledge to agree or disagree with anthropogenic climate change and I suspect most people don't.
This means we are subject to listening to people who are experts. And don't read "experts" as someone who knows everything about a field of study and is never wrong. An expert is someone who is very knowledgeable in their field. Expert knowledge changes. Experts are fallible but they're the best we have.
I have mentioned before I have spoken to a professor of geology who disagrees with anthropogenic climate change (it is not his area of expertise) and I have to respect his position because he is significantly more knowledgeable than myself BUT he would be the first to acknowledge his viewpoint maybe wrong; he is a scientist and all positions can be challenged.
Axiom for the day: opinion shopping is not research. |
Ok, then have said expert explain the warming after the ice age, warming that lead to the Viking expansion, cooling in the middle of the last century and other such events when man could not have been an influence. Or how Europe is finding lost historical structures as water levels recede. Clearly these water levels could not have been so low because of man’s influence. Climate change (assuming the current data isn’t being manipulated and it’s often proven it is) is a naturally occurring phenomenon outside of man’s influence. Climate change as it’s being discussed as all the rave is a political distraction, nothing more.