/sci/ - Science & Math

Why do so many in the people deny something as basic as the carbon cycle? I've heard just about every conspiracy theory for not "believing" in climate change from govt. conspiracies to liberal science propaganda. Is there a scientific explanation?

>>10607381
If you're interested, you will watch it later, but let me explain my scepticism in my own way:
1. Global warming apologists use unscientific methods: "every scientist agrees on this" - first of all it is not a scientific argument; second - where have you seen ANY issue every scientist agreed on?
Digging further into science I can see that EVERY field is corrupted.

Any psychologists on /sci/? How can we convince Americans to take anthropomorphic climate change seriously?

Has anyone ever addressed the 3% of research disputing anthropomorphic climate change?

What's the current state of the art knowledge regarding climate change?

I'm not convinced either way that anthropomorphic climate change is real or not (I'll consider myself a skeptic until scientists develop a more convincing argument), but assuming it is, why are we trying to slow it down instead of adapting to it/finding ways to profit off it?

Are the negative effects of it more significant than the potential opportunities we get from a warmer Earth?

Climatologist here.

What would it take to convince /sci/ that climatology is a science? I keep seeing posts claiming it's not

The "97% scientists agree" is a total lie. There are thousands of scientists, actual climatologists who do not agree that humans contribute significantly to climate change as actual data does not back up the alarmists claims. The us delegate who presented climate "research" at the Paris Agreement summit/meeting straight up lied about climate data to make it look more serious. It's all a scam and big business.
Earth's climate has been changing for 4 billion years and will continue to do so weather we are here or not.
Some scientists believe in fact that we are headed for a new mini ice age due to suns diminished activity and he/she has done calculations to back up those claims. An ice age like the Maunder minimum.

>>9400395

>>8796423
>The global warming petition project
>even if you just look at the individuals with PHDs that they far outnumber the IPCC "Scientists
Sure. Among the petition signers are fictional characters from the television show M*A*S*H, the movie Star Wars, Spice Girls group member Geri Halliwell, English naturalist Charles Darwin (d. 1882) and prank names such as "I. C. Ewe"
And only very few (around 40) actual climate scientists (if those are even true)

>So no there is no consensus not by any means
The consensus studies that have been done, yes the ones such as Cooks 97% consensus, were done mostly by not sending scientists a questionnaire, or getting them to sign some bullshit petition but instead reviewed samples of the scientific literature in the field of climate science, and looked for papers that made a statement about the human role in climate change. The results were that of papers that made a statement about human role in climate change, 97% of those papers supported the evidence that humans have been driving the current trends.

>>8737893
As for your crap about climate change being based on consensus, not empirical evidence, you are again, flat out wrong. The basis of climate change IS evidence, not consensus. Consensus studies have been done by non-climatologists for the sole reason that climate change deniers have created an "atmosphere" of doubt and misinformation surrounding the science of climate change, to the point where they have manufactured a scientific "debate" to mislead the public as to the actual scientific evidence for human impacts on climate.

The consensus studies that have been done, yes the ones such as Cooks 97% consensus, were done mostly by not sending scientists a questionnaire, or getting them to sign some bullshit petition (see Oregon petition) but instead reviewed samples of the scientific literature in the field of climate science, and looked for papers that made a statement about the human role in climate change. The results were that of papers that made a statement about human role in climate change, 97% of those papers supported the evidence that humans have been driving the current trends. Again, all this shows is that there is agreement within the field of climate science, and such a "debate" doesn't really exist at all among the actual researchers, however that's not to say that everyone in climate science has the same opinions about everything related to climate change, but the vast majority of them do not deny the scientific evidence that has been presented over the past few decades about the role of human activity in driving the current trend.

Go ahead, actually bother to read the consensus study itself and gain a better understanding of it. This isn't the only one too, there are several more you can look up / read such as Powell, 2013, Verheggen et al, 2014, Oreskes, 2004, etc.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Then read the follow up paper from last year:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

>>8591945
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change
pic related, from the article
>How about we start sending people who falsify data to jail.
It's already illegal to forge data.