As seen here, both sides seem to be selective on what data they present and how, which leads me to distrust either of them.
It’s funny you should say that. I’m only selective in that I reject studies (or interpretations of studies) that have been roundly disproven as industry-sponsored half-truths that rely on selective, cherry-picked data to push an industry agenda.
You may have missed this post I made on the rise in sea levels that a ridiculous denier keeps trying to say is “lies”, etc. You know how I found those charts? I simply searched scientific charts and pulled up what most of the entire world is recording along with general, scientific consensus based upon proper research. I didn’t seek out a single website and it’s not some selective, fringe science I had to dig up just to prove my point.
On the other hand, If you want to find truly selective data, type in crazy-pants things like “sea levels hoax” and shit. There you’ll be “taught the controversy” with selective (as in cherry-picked) data, half-truths and fringe “studies” that are rejected trash. They simply lie and say they’re peer-reviewed when they’re not. There is not a single, properly widespread peer-reviewed study that rejects 97% of climate scientists. If your mission is to truly look at the science, then you can’t possibly ignore that.
I assume you’re not anti-evolution. (if you are, stop reading here, and let’s just agree to disagree, thx)
How did you come to find that evolution is valid science without removing some religion-sponsored, half-truths and fringe “studies” from your final conclusion? Do you think public schools should “teach the controversy” based upon roundly disproven myths or should we focus on actual science? There is not a single, properly widespread peer-reviewed study that rejects evolution. If your mission is to truly look at the science, then you can’t possibly ignore that.
I guess I am just not convinced that the changes seen and predicted aren’t “normal”.
You don’t have to be. It’s time you refer to true experts in their field who aren’t just studying climate science part-time, but are dedicated scientists.
97% of actual climate scientists agree (which is an incredible amount) that climate change is real and that it’s very likely due to human activities. What valid research have you done or found that rejects what the vast majority a climate scientists have determined that isn’t cherry-picked rubbish?
If you do more research you’ll find that the overwhelming majority of those that are deniers tend to be anything but climate scientists. This video below is humorous, but it represents a lot of the frustration that actual climate scientists are having with all the anti-science dolts that are rejecting their consensus for no other reason than that they’ve been “taught the controversy” by industry-sponsored, libertarian “think tanks” that have little or nothing to do with actual science and more to do with propaganda.
I commend you for taking some classes, but until you become an actual climate scientist I hope you learn that good science is also based upon being humble and listening to those who know more than you. That’s not me or anyone else, it’s the world’s climate scientists.
It’s the height of arrogance and ignorance to ignore them and think you know better without doing equally rigorious and truly peer reviewed studies to back you up. I encourage you to question any science and start your own studies to disprove them if you can, but posting conjecture that they’re wrong without backing yourself up without rigorous studies and becoming an solid, seasoned expert in the field is ignorant and disrespectful to those that do.
If you’ve got valid data that turns upside down what 97% of the world’s climate scientists are studying, then you need to come forward with that data and get it peer-reviewed by said scientists. Sorry, that’s how science works. Otherwise, you’re off to a really rough start on getting educated on climate science and climate change as it applies to our modern world with our human activities.