![]() |
|
#10
|
||||
|
Quote:
Here's a direct response to his article: https://features.weather.com/course-...isinformation/ Here are actual scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals (read: not Forbes magazine) on the issue: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/307/5708/355 https://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.abstract https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es501998e https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/ful...S-D-13-00091.1 https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1.../9/094025/meta https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1.../2/024024/meta https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...26/11/4/048002 (This last one is a synthesis on many of the different studies, all peer-reviewed, unlike Epstein's work.) These studies demonstrate a range of 91-100% scientific consensus on anthropomorphic climate change. Most, however, are around 97%. A common refrain among climate change deniers is that this is a power grab. But this doesn't hold up: these scientists come from different countries and have many different sources of funding, as do the different government agencies from different countries, all of which overwhelmingly agree that humans are the primary driver of climate change. Besides, there's actually a huge financial incentive (see: Alex Epstein) to bring legitimate evidence to bear that climate change in fact is not real. If it was available, we would see it. Alas, unfortunately, the problem is very real. I'll spare you the insult of "moron" that you issued to me, but either you need to get more informed on this topic or you should proceed with a bit more intellectual humility. | |||
|
|
||||
|
|