climate scientists aren't random people? Why would someone spend their entire life studying climate change? Whos funding that? And what if they came to the conclusion that humans didnt cause climate change? Would they lose their funding?
-No, climate scientists aren't random people, they are scientists with PhDs and multiple Master's degrees in their related climate-study fields.
-They spend their entire life studying climate change because that's what they chose to do around age 17-18 and are passionate about the topic. They then go on to get a Bachelor's Degree, a Master's Degree, a PhD, and then Post-Doctoral studies in climate change studies, as well as continued research in the field for decades afterwards.
-Generally, (If in the USA) the student has to fund their schooling themselves, through massive amounts of student loan debt, and if lucky, scholarships. Post-grads can receive funding from the government if they have a long enough resume and show promise and aptitude to continue studying in the field appropriately, but this isn't all-too common. They can receive funding from banks, from parents, from corporations, from a separate job, from their own pockets. They live in the real world just like you and me.
-If they come to the conclusion that humans didn't cause climate change, then their study & results / findings would be peer-reviewed by fellow scholars and academics the world-round. If other scientists and scholars found their results to be accurate and well-researched, with strong evidence for being definite, their findings would become well-credited and accepted as generally accurate. The opposite is true, unfortunately.
-If students / scholars / academics / scientists / doctors on climate change presented research that humans didn't cause climate change, and the evidence and results were peer-reviewed and studied by other professionals and found to be accurate, no, they would not lose their funding. Quite the opposite actually, they would probably get more funding. They would only lose their funding if they presented false evidence or lied, or altered documents, or did something else that goes against the merits of the scientific method.
reply
What makes this system so perfect? How do you know it produces facts and not misinformation?
reply
It's not perfect, no system is perfect. But it is the best we've got so far. That's what science is, basically: The best we've got... so far.
It's sort of like a decentralized information system where peers validate each other's research and.... uh.....
Yeah, it's a lot like Bitcoin actually - Don't trust, verify.
reply
If you don't believe in climate change at this point you're either naive or in denial
reply
Not an argument
reply
Yes, you're right; it's a statement.
There is nothing to argue at this point. You're either naive or in denial, choose one.
reply
Theres a 3rd option that you are a bigot
reply
All the information is staring you dead in the face. I think that you just want to be a skeptic because you can get attention from it.
Climate deniers are one step above flat earthers.
reply
All the information is staring you dead in the face.
Im not sure what you are referring to. Your only "contribution" has been ad hominem and im going to ignore you from here on
reply
So you are saying that you researched this topic and didn't find any convincing evidence from the mountains of research that overwhelmingly reaches the same conclusion that climate change is real?
I am all for DYOR and skepticism, but stupid shit like this needs to be called out.
reply
You are conflating climate change with human caused climate change which is what was being discussed pay attention? And to anyone curious what started the ice age/glacial periods? What ended it?