Climate scientists are highly trained in several different advanced disciplines/fields, which all contribute to their knowledge of global trends and the meaning behind them. Their skills would easily be put to use in other areas of science if this subset of study didn't exist. Government funding for climate research exists because it is necessary and the data backs that up.
Secondly, I've never heard of this so-called "climate gate," so please clarify with verified information.
Thirdly, just because liberals have been aware of climate change for nearly decades at this point does not invalidate the studies that have been produced. The very existence of climate change indicates a need for stemming the use of non-renewable resources, which requires regulation. Regulation is a red flag for most conservatives, so it violates their value system and provides reason to not accept the information, even when it's been proven out to the greatest extent possible.
In science, there are various levels of studies. The lower levels aren't given much credence and may include individual case studies, indicating a small sample size and lack of a control. As you get higher in the hierarchy, more of these things that ensure the truthfulness of the information make the research process as bulletproof as possible. The highest level is known as a systematic study, which examines the results of sometimes thousands of peer-reviewed studies and determines the scientific consensus. Such a study was done examining climate change studies from all over the world and found that there are only about 3% of scientists in the field who disagree that it isn't happening and man-made. There is no debate in the field. The only counter to that is the conspiracy theory that every single climate scientist colludes with one another, which is logistically about as unlikely as me phasing through a wall after walking into it enough or a monkey writing a novel by bashing on the keys for long enough. These are thousands of studies examined from scientists all over the world.
It's also important to understand the only country with a major party who outright denies climate change exists in the United States, as far as I'm aware. Climate denial is a local phenomena for the most part, for now at least. To say that every other country in the world, whose scientists contributed to the systematic study mentioned earlier, were pressed on by liberals to fabricate evidence falls apart when you take that into context.
It is a complicated issue, which is why we have trained scientists with PHDs studying them. But then we don't trust the results of their studies when it doesn't align with our values? That's problematic. If you want to see the effects of climate change, just look outside. If you think that warmer temperature is better for everyone, then I'd expect you to back that up with actual knowledge of the field.
Lastly, to be clear, scientists don't make claims about what will happen based on opinion. They look at global trends and the data that supports it. If there's a constant and long-standing trend of increasing temperatures, which there are, then they can extrapolate from that. This is not inherently a politicized issue, but it's been made into one, and that's unfortunate for the entire planet. One final thing: when someone presents you with a chart of data, please make sure to check the intervals that are used. Information can be manipulated in charts, which is why you have to stay on your toes. Always look for long term trends, not just temperature changes over a period of a few months. Scientists who look at temperatures recorded since that data was collected have a clear understanding of it.
I don't trust the science of climate change for several reasons. First reason, the scientists in question livelihood depends on man made climate change being real. So for the same reason I don't trust corporations, I don't trust the climate scientists themselves. Government funding for climate research is a HUGE industry, with government funneling billions into research facilities/universities.
Second reason I don't trust the science is because they got caught lying about the science in the climate gate scandal where internal emails came out showing them colluding to change temperature data, making old data seem cooler than it was, and rounding newer data up.
Third reason I don't trust it is because liberals have been using it as a political weapon for 3 decades.
I'm not saying that man doesn't haven't an impact on global warming, but I think it's exaggerated by the left in a very major way. I also think it's VERY debatable if the change we have and will have is a bad thing. I know we've heard doomsday scenarios, but there's no proof that climate change has negatively impacted us. Quite the opposite. The warmer the temperature, the more farmable land there is. Sure we lose some to desert, but we gain more than we lose. The hysteria over hurricanes has proven to be unfounded. The claims made about weather have proven to be false over and over. Sea rising levels. False. Weather predictions. False.
The truth is, it's an extremely complicated issue, and most people can't even begin to understand the science or the implications. It does not help that the scientist keep making wild claims about what is going to happen, and continually being wrong about them.
I love that the crew at GB are willing to talk about this sort of stuff in an upfront way during a Farming Simulator Quick Look. They've always been authentic and it's what I admire most about this site. Keep up the great work, everyone.
The actual science and data contradicts everything that you just wrote in this entire passage. Those that dig into the facts objectively will come to the exact opposite conclusion that you did. It's an issue that's been politicized when it should not have, and now we have people rejecting observed truths because it seems to conflict with their value system (in this case, the role of government in regulation of markets).
Yes the climate changes....it always has, no we arent doing it, and no, taxing exhaling wont do anything but make politicians more powerful.
The "science" has been turned into a government funded welfare program for researchers who get paid to get a specific result. (No different than when cigarette companies funded their own studies about smoking)
Again, i apologize for going there, but after studying this subject, ive found most climate "science" is built on sloppy computer models, knowingly skewed data, and "peer" reviewed studies.
Most importantly, every single prediction, forecast, and warning made by climate change advocates in the last 20 years has not only been wrong, but embarrassingly so. Just go back ten years and read the hurricane models by climate "scientists".....then read the data. Then do Arctic sea ice coverage. etc.
Ive never encountered another scientific endeavor which allows its most respected academics to be wrong every time and lose zero credibility.
Its a subject i encourage everyone to dig into.....dont just believe what i tell you or what anyone tells you. Dig in. All the data is available.
jocumo89's comments