Good point, however, there are multiple cases where climate research has data that is argumentative or even in some cases falsified. In something as large and unknown as climate and the earth, it’s very hard to prove causation. With good data, this topic is very argumentative in academia as well. Plus any scientist or professor worth anything will say that you can’t just take what researchers say as law. You have to be skeptical and read their work and try to understand their process and make a judgement on whether it’s good data or good interpretation of data.
Sure, but to know whether it's good data you have to be an academic. You can't expect a layperson with a few hours on the internet to accurately judge the methodologies of scientists with advanced degrees and thousands of hours of research. I know it's hard, but we have to trust scientists when they come to a consensus and they have in this case.
Just because you have an advanced degree doesn’t mean you are inherently correct. I know of a few individuals with advanced degrees that when you ask them questions beyond what text says, they can’t explain or understand. If you went to or are going to school for a science based degree, your school should teach you how to analyze data. For instance, a psychology professor of mine had us read an article she thought was good where they linked marijuana to mental health issues. But after reading it, the students pointed out they collected their data at a mental health clinic. So it’s obvious there’s be a connection. After that she agreed with us the data was skewed. Just because you have an advanced degree doesn’t mean you can automatically determine causation
And don’t get me wrong. I don’t deny global warming is a thing and we are the cause of it. But I do think that it is a little dramatized by certain communities. I also believe that it is important that everyone challenges the scientific thought to ensure it is accurate.
shaarp project?
both?
noooooo. "soccer moms"
bad. you are bad.