4 ms·
I find it very hard to believe that 99% of scientists are credible experts on GW. Consensus is a political term not a scientific one, no one disproves the null
by fleitz 11y ago
I find it very hard to believe that 99% of scientists are credible experts on GW.
Consensus is a political term not a scientific one, no one disproves the null consensus.
In science we cite experts, papers and a refutable hypothesis, in politics we cite the opinions of non expert masses to questions that have no refutable hypothesis.
I feel you on the trust though both sides feel like they are lying through their teeth to protect their POV/livelihoods. Most topics in science to me have easy experiments like here's a terrarium with 200ppm and here's 400ppm this one is Z degrees hotter therefore we must take any actions we can to sequester co2 like ocean seeding, etc. instead of here's a bunch of massaged data our only choice is to not use fossil fuels.
- jolux 11y agoYes however one side has science and evidence and the other side has lobbyists and oil companies. There's a wealth of independent research proving climate change. The question is not whether or not CO2 has an insulating effect, this is intuitively obvious with even a basic understanding of chemistry and physics. The question is whether we're emitting enough of it to cause environmental problems diverse from those naturally occurring. Additionally, the effects would not be as obvious in something like a terrarium because the greenhouse effect works with glass as well. That's why it's called the greenhouse effect.
- fleitz 11y agoFunny if you ask someone on the other side they say the exact same thing, science/God is on their side and the others are just a bunch of lobbyists / frauds making up data.
- jolux 11y agoYes, but the difference is they're objectively wrong about science being on their side and the existence of God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis.