>>8197923I read scientific literature about the Earth for class. It's part of being an Earth Science major.
You know what I never see? Anyone defending climate change at all. You know why? It's already assumed. Because the evidence is so strong that there's no argument anymore. You would know this if you read actual scientific journals instead of conspiracy blogs.
The only questions about climate change in the last 40 years taken with any merit by scientists at all were whether aerosols would reflect enough sunlight to offset CO2.
That's it. There's a bit about whether heating would create more cloud cover to block sunlight but that was a Hail Mary by skeptics because we already know that clouds both increase temperature (because they're made of water vapor) and decrease the temperature (because they block sunlight) and the evidence over the last 100 years just doesn't support the idea. (See the effect that grounding every single airplane after September 11th did for the climate).
Those questions have already been resolved as the temperature data has come in.
See
>>8197404Which I wrote earlier and I notice nobody has responded to.
Science isn't a committee (even though we sometimes form committees to talk science). It's about conclusions based on evidence. If you and I stand at the beach and both of us argue about the tide, whether it's coming out or going in, after awhile the evidence must point one way or the other and one of us will quit arguing because the evidence doesn't support our position. That's how science works.
Among all Earth sciences the evidence is clear. Global warming is real and caused by humans. If you disagree with this go read the literature. Not conspiracy blogs. Scientific papers will ALWAYS tell you how they got their data so you yourself can check it.
I'm home from work, do you guys have any real questions related to the science of global warming? Or are you all here to spout uneducated propaganda?
