How come there's so much conflicting science on whether climate change is real or not?

...

Because any issue that implications for corporate interests gets lobbyists involved. The consequence of that is a lot of conflicting info.

Studies have been done, the levels of CO2 in the air are much lower than in earths history, during the Carboniferous period the levels of CO2 in the air were 10x what they are now, it’s not a worry about if earth will survive its a worry about if humans will survive

>Disagree with the accuracy of projections
>Result of natural causes
>Result of unknown causes
>Won't be so bad
>Dead guys

OH, so they couldn't come up with any living scientists to make the claim that global warming isn't happening.

That's a strawman. Nobody's saying climate doesn't change. Climate changes all the time and it's a natural phenomenon.

The way this post started out made me nervous that it was gonna be anti-climate change shilling, but once i read the full post, i dont think i could have said it better myself

This is correct and what people need to understand on both sides

Manmade climate change probably is real. But it isn't like we have any viable alternative to fossil fuels unless we are willing to go back to pre industrial revolution living standards. Multinational agreements like the Paris Climate Accords are clearly globalist ploys to strip the USA of its sovereignty and manufacturing capabilities.

TLDR: it was fun while it lasted, enjoy the ride. We'll all be dead in 100 years anyways.

Because oil companies aer very wealthy and invest heavily in lobbying politicians and putting out PR in favor of climate change denial.

You mean nuclear isn't viable and we won't just have to use mass transit over individual automobiles?

What a terrible idea. Woe is me.

There really isn't. But oil gigants want you to think there is.

How do you convert all of the worlds power plants to nuclear energy and with the way geopolitics are fundamentally structured, would you necessarily want to? You basically need a UN like structure that actually has teeth to it to enforce laws, and not the current toothless UN. You go ahead and try to sell that.

>You basically need a UN like structure that actually has teeth to it to enforce laws
so the USA?

>usa is going to go on a global crusade with their tanks and helicopters and rifles building nuclear plants everywhere they go while concurrently training millions of engineers and technicians to staff them and secure them and this will all go over swimmingly and everyone will live happily ever after

literally no-one who talks about climate change in a modern context is claiming that it poses an existential threat to the earth itself

Global warming deniers just proves how easy it is to brainwash people. It's so easy to do it's kinda frightening. We're learning about the truth now because it's a literal global crisis and people are out spoken. But I wonder what other things are the masses brainwashed about where there's no vocal outcry to the truth? How much of my world is based on lies, and if 99% of the population believes in that lie with me, does it matter that it's a lie?

tl;dr what things that are commonly accepted as true, are in fact false or engineered lies, deception, and misinformation

and yet some deniers (for lack of a better word) will say that it's not a big deal because the earth has been hotter before.

>deniers (for lack of a better word)
try 'skeptics'

all phenomenon are natural. What a silly thing to say.

> All phenomenon
> not all phenomena

fuck no, skeptism is a good word
religious nuts is what they are, just con artists

prove it

Not an argument, that stat is known bullshit

This is the climate red pill

Because billions of dollars is involved on both sides of the debate.

First of all we know man influences the environment. The issue is by how much and by what percentage does man influence. So when you use statistics to explain that influence it is incredibly easy to depict it in a way that favors either argument.

So money and the nature of statistics explain the issue with the climate debate.

I don't think there's so much conflicting science on the issue. No one thinks climate change is not real, in that everyone knows that the climate has changed in the past and will continue to do so.
Whether the changes we have seen in the recent past is because of human activity is where there may be some debate, but there isn't that much really.
Most of the stuff you see online put out by climate skeptics can be easily refuted, with a quick 'google'. And anything that actually goes against the main climate narrative is more likely to be what specific mechanism or interaction caused some minor change in climate some thousands or tens of thousands of years ago.
I think the reason people believe some of the things you see in the media about 'hoaxs' etc... is purely because people cannot personally measure changes in atmospheric composition unless they are unlucky enough to be put in a gas chamber, so it's much harder to get our heads around it. No one disputes the problems with plastic pollution for that same reason.

It is a tautology. If it wasn't natural, it didn't happen. Thus it is redundant to qualify phenomena as natural when there is no other possible state of being.

>that stat is known bullshit
...according to the fuel-industry shill denialists.

Lrn2distinguish natural from artificial, philosophag

Pretty sure that poster knows nothing about philosophy considering he/she is just using the neutered dictionary definition of phenomenon

9/11 and the jews
I aint even pol but come on and open your eyes

You're right, sometimes it's 95%, or 98%.

Either way, we should never take what 99.999999% of experts say as truth about anything, because, it took Christopher Columbus to prove Earth isn't the center of the Universe. If someone disagrees with the majority, they're basically Christopher Colubus

>You can't ever influence a natural phenomenon

Wow you used your thinking cap for this one didn't you

There are no artificial phenomenon. Unless you are implying a simulated universe, which is a useless concept.

Because until now science has advanced human expansion, not inconvenienced it. Suddenly there's science saying using more and more resources is a bad thing, and some people get really cross about it, be it for laziness to rethink their lifestyle or for personal profit.

>Columbus proved Earth isn't the center of the universe

>There are no artificial phenomenon. Unless you are implying a simulated universe, which is a useless concept.
Then there are artificial phenomena.

Nope. You're natural. Things you do are natural.

>Nope. You're natural. Things you do are natural.
I'm a homosexual, not natural at all.

try 'contrarians'

Because, like so many other things, statistical data can be manipulated, excused, reasoned into or out of the conversation, deflected, and straight-up omitted.