Atmospheric science and Meteorology are offered in most Canadian and American universities. I didn't know this was a secret.
There is no such thing as "climate science"
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
Atmospheric science and Meteorology are offered in most Canadian and American universities. I didn't know this was a secret.
Climate science tends to refer to people from various fields such as those that you mention who focus their research on climate. Petros seems to have an issue with them, because apparently if you spend any amount of time studying the climate, the fact that global warming is happening becomes very apparent to the vast majority of qualified scientists. He doesn't agree with that, so it makes him unhappy.
You don't have to be a forum idiot if you don't want to be.
They don't spend time studying climate, collecting data, or making forecasts. It's pure 100% data crunching to create scenarios. It's like calling
Poli sci a real science.
Well, no. People from a number of different fields study climate, and they are all often considered to be focused on "climate science". It isn't a legally defined term though, so people use it in different ways.
Right and those people do not call theselve's "climate scientists".
Noooooo they are earth scietistists and as for the math question you know the answer but are merely afraid of the shame. Anyone with the slightest of brain knows exponential increases never lead to negatives.
I guess it depends. In the article that you cited, the 97% of people who said that they supported the idea of climate change would not all necessarily refer to themselves as "climate scientists", but they all work on climate science issues.
97% of scientists believe in man-made climate change.
Another myth extrapolated from a flawed study.
97% of mythical "climate scientists" agree yet consensus is nowhere close to that in the real earth sciences which is where climatologists meteorologists hydrologists geologists etc are grouped. There are no climate scientists in the earth sciences world.
You can't make it exist by wishing it was real.
Obviously the number will change based on who you choose to sample. What studies have you seen with other numbers?
Already been posted. Several times and I'm not posting them again. You can get the f-ck off you lazy fat *** and look this sh-t up for your own goddam self.
Last edited:
Haha, poor petros is having a temper tantrum.
I only remember you posting one study, and in that study, 88% of the people who actually do research on climate said that humans were at least as responsible as natural causes for global warming.
Your don't remember the 50 some percent consensus of meteorologists? If climatologists and meteorologists total 70.5% who makes up the portion that pushes it to 97%¿ More sh-t math like where positive exponential inputs lead to negatives.
Tantrum? Have you ever seen on of those deprogrammers at work?
Yes, that is what I am talking about. The majority of the people in that study don't publish any research, and they skew the average way way down.
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Scroll to the last page and actually look at the table.
78% of people who actually publish peer reviewed research on climate believe that global warming is real and mostly caused by humans, another 10% believe that humans are equally responsible.
If you are going to ask a scientist about anything, wouldn't you ask a scientist who actually does research on that topic?
I'm not sure what there is to argue about with this subject, we all know one thing for sure - "Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get". Lately we've been getting warmer weather and cooler weather, more precipitation and less precipitation, more tornadoes and hurricanes, more ice melting, more forest fires, so it's pretty clear something is happening, but what? Do we try to change the course or do we try to compensate or a combination of both?
That is why the scientific method exist and why we have detailed research done on some topics that people would generally assume were "common sense".
We can't rely just on what we perceive.
Well, that may be easily proven - count the deaths, serious injuries, loss of homes, damage to property caused by the weather and compare to previous years!
Not individually but perhaps collectively!
Do you know what an alleged "climate scientist" is and does? I posted it above. Did you read it?
You are in the same boat you were in with the bible college. Rowing in circles like a one armed man.
that's twice in this thread now you've flailed about...please learn how to insert an image billy. thanks eh.
