/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3556209]

How can we trust climate scientists' claims about human contributions to global warming? The fact that the planet is warming is too obvious to deny, but causation is a much more complex issue, and there are tremendously powerful political forces pushing in both directions. I don't see how laymen can justifiably claim to even have an opinion about it.

[Anonymous No.3556212]

The Oil and Coal Industries say no.. Who are YOU going to believe?

[Blackman No.3556216]

There's no way global warming can be real, my state got more snow than ever this winter.

[Anonymous No.3556224]

In middle Europe we had a very rainy and cold summer this year.

[Anonymous No.3556267]

>>3556212
>>3556216
>>3556224

Science is a powerful tool because of it's predictive power, no?

Well /science/ told us that with global warming we will see more violent and frequent monsoons, tornadoes, hurricanes, and snow and rain as a consequence of ice cap melting and major ocean currents warming up. And this is exactly what is happening


America's most trusted news source tells us why: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123671588

[Anonymous No.3556322]

>>3556267
Think you've been trolled bro.

[Anonymous No.3556718]

[Anonymous No.3556736]

>How can we trust climate scientists' claims about human contributions to global warming?

I hope you are not suggesting that scientists could be involved in some global century-old conspiracy to deceive people into believing that man-made climate change is real. We have a different board for that kind of stuff, you know.

[Anonymous No.3556827]

>>3556736
I didn't say anything about a conspiracy. In fact, if I had to guess, I would say humans are primarily to blame for global warming. If I had to give a number, I'd say the chances are maybe 60%.

I also think that anyone who says it's more like 95% is far too confident about science's ability to remain objective on politicized issues.

[Anonymous No.3556875]

>>3556827

>I'd say the chances are maybe 60%.

Well, the IPPC says that the chance that humans are responsible for most of the warming is >90%. How did you arrive at your number?

[Anonymous No.3556933]

is it safe (or sound) to say the main difference between "Global Warming" and "Climate Change" is whether or not humans are the main cause?

[Anonymous No.3556951]

>>3556933

No. The difference is that "global warming" refers to increase in globally averaged temperature, while "climate change" is a much wider term that encompasses many other changes (precipitation, sea level, etc.)

[Anonymous No.3556971]

the conclusion was reached before it was controversial or political.

we've known that co2 and water vapor drive warming for over a century. we've known that co2 is increasing for almost a century. we've known that it's increasing at about half the rate we're producing it for most of the last 60 years.

common faggots on the street have been arguing about that for almost 20 years. You can't come late to the argument and claim the originators (now long dead) are sinister political liars.

[Krakengineer !!5XY+x7grkpt No.3557212]

>>3556209 How can we trust biology scientists' claims about evolution contributions to speciation? The fact that there are different species is too obvious to deny, but causation is a much more complex issue, and there are tremendously powerful political forces pushing in both directions. I don't see how laymen can justifiably claim to even have an opinion about it.

[Anonymous No.3557269]

>>3556875
>How did you arrive at your number?
I pulled it out of my ass, and I'm not ashamed in the least to admit it. Not only am I uncertain about global warming -- I'm also uncertain about the proper amount of uncertainty. Those unknown unknowns that Rumsfeld talked about can drive you crazy.

Pic related, it's the wisest man in Greece.

[Anonymous No.3557328]

>>3557212
There's a difference. Generally, the "pro-evolution" side isn't terribly concerned about creationists disagreeing with them. (Yes, I know they complain about the detrimental effects of ignorance and anti-science worldviews, but this is all relatively low-key.) The "humans cause global warming" side, on the other hand, is extremely concerned about disagreement because of the potential for disastrous results if we don't act. So naturally, they fight much harder to win the argument then the "pro-evolution" camp does. None of this is sinister or scary. But groupthink can develop. It can become impossible to tell where science ends and politics begins. For the layman, I think this makes certainty about the issue logically untenable.