Frankly I see it as more of a plus than a problem. At least for North America.
Looking at North America you see a V-shape (sort of) and as the V goes up and gets wider, the colder NA gets. Thats why in Canada they can farm on maybe 100 miles or so from the american border. Think of the millions of acres of development that can be opened up with the onset of warmer temperatures.
And in Europe wouldnt Norway, Finland, and Sweden benefit from northern areas becoming warmer?
What if Greenland becomes so warm agriculture could return?
Correct me if I’m misunderstanding but I take it that you consider the 97% figure to be so high that it has to be false in some way. If that’s right, to what level would the consensus figure have to fall before you accepted it as plausible?
And would that figure be above or below the level at which you would then deny there was a meaningful consensus?
Much like the greedy scientists just wanting to get grant money, this makes a nice talking point, but isn’t true. 97% of scientists believe that DNA codes for protein. What do I win?
I’m a biologist. I can get grant money by making incremental addition to the literature. I can make big money by using my credentials to become an anti-vaccine media commentator.
You know how a credentialed climate scientist could make real cash? Become a Foxnews commentator. Legitimate climate scientists are not making nearly enough money from grants to make it worth lying.
The fact of the matter is that the predicted effects of global climate change, such as melting of ice in Antarctica and Greenland, have already been way up into the high end of predictions made by mainstream scientists. While climate change isn’t going to cause the collapse of civilization, in the next few centuries it’s certainly going to have enormously detrimental effects.
It’s undoubtedly not always the case. Do you always discount things that are not correct 100% of the time, or are you only that rigorous where you are trying to avoid the implications of the general case?
Ah, yes, Greenland will be lovely, unfortunately when a similar thing happened in the past conditions in the south west and the grain belt where those of a mega drought, and similar things had been found in the past in regions of China, Africa, Amazonia and others. Wanting to see the polar regions melt does not sound very nice when the problems elsewhere are taken into account.
Science writer Peter Hadfield explains with supported published science:
The link goes to the final part, but the whole thing should be seen. (Just 20 minutes) to learn how deceptive many deniers are with the data and graphs.
Well, what about then the points from a conservative Republican scientist at BYU? (Barry Bickmore is of the few conservative scientists left as the right wing is pushing them aside or even threatening)
(The short videos made by Bickmore deal with 2 studies made earlier than the one I cited already, the 97% number from the surveyed scientists supported the idea that humans are driving or significantly causing the changes. Yes, that high number was also reached then)
I think that it is always the case. To channel Carl Sagan, if you are making an extraordinary claim that flies against what the majority of scientists currently believe, then you better have extraordinary data to back it up.
Right now, the data is such that the vast majority of scientists in the field have looked at it and determined that climate change is happening and that humans are the cause. If someone wants to dispute that, they better have data to back it up, and not just politicians that don’t want to believe it.
A sizable percentage (majority?) of Republican members of Congress don’t believe in the scientific fact of evolution. Why would I think they can understand science sufficiently to get climate change?
