4 ms·

>serious questions about how much of that is natural cycle and how much we are doing. We know we are doing some, we don't know how much, but we keep saying that

>serious questions about how much of that is natural cycle and how much we are doing. We know we are doing some, we don't know how much, but we keep saying that this is settled science when more valid questions need to be asked your statement is false, and it's a climate denialist talking point which was important enough such that climate scientists systematically examined and refuted it in the context of numerous pieces of peer-reviewed literature: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044005 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044... ""Despite a high degree of consensus amongst publishing climate researchers that global warming is occurring and that it is anthropogenic, this discourse [that humans may not be responsible for some degree of climate change], promoted largely by non-scientists, has had a significant impact on public perceptions of the issue, fostering the impression that elite opinion is divided as to the nature and extent of the threat [when it is not]."

kls 7y ago
It's not false, the article you link to provide no data, nor does any of it's references that I checked and basically just states a lot of scientist agree. Which I don't deny, I have my skepticism as to how accurate climatology and climate physics disciplines are but that is a personal view, i don't view it as a pseudoscience but I put a lot less faith in it than I do mathmatics. The article sited provides no data that would break down CO2 contributions based on natural phenomenon vs emissions. The only study I know of that does is the tree ring data paper and it has since been found to have significant mathematical errors and in need of revision based on the findings. This article is a sociology piece at best describing the natures of how denialist and right wing fanatics operate and how climate scientist tend to agree, but even with that there are social implications of funding, group think etc.

kls 7y ago

It's not false, the article you link to provide no data, nor does any of it's references that I checked and basically just states a lot of scientist agree. Which I don't deny, I have my skepticism as to how accurate climatology and climate physics disciplines are but that is a personal view, i don't view it as a pseudoscience but I put a lot less faith in it than I do mathmatics. The article sited provides no data that would break down CO2 contributions based on natural phenomenon vs emissions. The only study I know of that does is the tree ring data paper and it has since been found to have significant mathematical errors and in need of revision based on the findings. This article is a sociology piece at best describing the natures of how denialist and right wing fanatics operate and how climate scientist tend to agree, but even with that there are social implications of funding, group think etc.