Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkenBRZ
Ok, then have said expert [1] 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 [2]) is a naturally occurring phenomenon [3] outside of man’s influence [4]. Climate change as it’s being discussed as all the rave is a political distraction [5], nothing more [6].
|
1/ Which expert?
The media often portrays scientist as wearing a white lab coat, working diligently over a microscope seeking the truth.
And this stereotype is often correct BUT scientists are human, prone to the very same frailties as everyone else. So we get some scientists who cherry pick data, submit publications to less than reputable journals, who cling on to their theories because they are emotionally invested in same.
But as I mention above experts are the best we have. Who else are we going to believe? Some random people on a forum who have spent 5 minutes on a search engine then calling themselves an expert?
How can a person tell if something is true or false if that person doesn't have knowledge in that field?
Story time. Two good acquaintances of mine were studying philosophy at university. One was doing her degree, the other his masters. I was there when they were discussing something philosophy. It was incomprehensible. I didn't have the knowledge to understand what they were saying.
This can be applied to any higher level of study.
2/ Two possibilities: it is being manipulated (see above point about human fallibility) OR new ways have been discovered of interpreting/presenting the same data. You say "it's often proven". How often, what about the data that isn't proven to be manipulated? Once a paper/study has been published it is open to scrutiny. How do you know the data has been manipulated? Because someone has studied the data and found it wanting.
3/ Given what I have read I don't think anyone is disputing climate doesn't change. But why can't there be climate change that is caused by a combination of naturally occurring and man made? I don't see any mutual exclusivity.
4/ Given the evidence of I read of (note what I said: read of, not "read") man, woman and non-gender specif people
can change climate.
5/ Yes, there is political games being played and the democratic process is a shambles but that doesn't mean climate change is going away anytime soon.
6/ Capitalism and democracy are social constructs. There are alternatives (I am not saying they are viable alternatives, just that people have agreed to these institutions) but people cannot live without food, water or living in elevated temperatures.