They aren't straw men....they are posters on this site. Also, which predictions? it seems they get more extreme every year.
Again, it seems as if you receive all your information from political pundits. NO scientists will claim that climate change IS ONLY perpetuated by humans.
Find a peer reviewed science article about climate change and descredit it. Or you can use the recent study from the UN.
If it isn't driven by humans, it can't be controlled by changing human activity....pretty much what I believe and when I state that here, I get push back by those claiming that climate change IS driven by human activity.
No, they are straw men because they are hyperbolic statements that you argue against because you are unable to argue against the actual predictions, which get more extreme because we continue to ignore the problem.
It's this simple. You are making a claim that scientists are skewing data to promote man assisted climate change. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I ask for your evidence.
it's not an extraordinary claim and I point to the loose connection between what "causes" climate change and the levels of human production. I don't deny any of the actual science that they are doing, just the dots they are trying to connect and the predictions they are making.
So you are making the claim that scientists involved with climatology are almost unified in presenting fraudulent data and studies. Yet the only evidence you provide to back your claim is this idea that they have a reason of preserving a field that doesn't really need to be preserved. You have no other real evidence besides this thought that that's what they are doing and why?
I certainly believe humans have contributed to the change. I only believe this because the science is pretty clear on the subject.
The reason is simple. If humans are not affecting the climate, the science they are doing has very little value. How many people do you know that are in the business of working themselves out of a job? I can't believe it is that hard to understand, if you are the one scientist that says "I don't believe humans have any measurable effect on climate change" you have put your job and the job of every other climate scientist in jeopardy. It is far safer to just say that humans COULD be having an impact on the climate which is obviously true and you get to maintain your funding. As long as climate change is a hot button topic worthy of governmental intervention in industry the science is relevant. If it is proven that humans are not impacting the climate then nobody cares about climate change other than to find out if it will affect their golf day. It really is quite simple. The straw-man that these scientist could go to work for big oil and make a lot more money denying climate change is silly. Big oil doesn't waste money and that would be a waste of money. They can go to work for the government which has just as much if not more invested in them coming up with taxation revenue streams. Working for the government, their science is somehow protected from the possibility that they might have reason to see things as somewhat one-sided. Go try and get funding to disprove human climate impact, nobody, not even big oil wants that, there is no money in it. Carbon emissions are a huge government stream of revenue and disproving the impact of human carbon emissions is not going to come from government funded science. Unfortunately for science, it all needs funding. The second you publish a finding contradicting what your funding expected, your going to need to find other funding. If you publish a finding that effects a bunch of other scientists funding, you are going to be label a science denier. Climate change is big business and if you don't believe that, you are obviously not paying attention.
There are plenty of fields and data to study regarding the climate other than man made global warming. It may change the focus of study if it came out that men had no effect on climate change, but it wouldn't eradicate the need for all scientists doing work in climatology. I understand the reason why you are saying scientists would falsify data, and make fraudulent studies. But to accuse more than 90% of scientists in the field of being that unethical, and possibly criminal if they've gotten money for their works with no evidence at all other than an idea that they would because all scientists involved with climatology would be out of work if they didn't, doesn't carry much weight. Again any scientist that provided proof that mankind wasn't playing a part in climate change, they would win a nobel prize, could command millions upon millions in speaker fees, publishing, earn huge sums from the oil companies and other big businesses, etc. Yet according to you, these scientists are crooked enough to sacrifice that kind of fame, prestige, and wealth, in order to commit fraud, so that funding for their current field of study can continue, but they aren't interested in money enough to publish the supposed truth? If the scientists are all committing this fraud, then show some proof other than a reason why they might want to do it. Motive alone isn't proof. I'm really trying to make sense of the arguments you guys are putting forward, but I just don't see it making much sense.
@ okierock; I think you seriously underestimate the fame and reputation scientists could gain if they could conclusively prove that anthromorphic climate change is fake, and the rivalry between scientists. You claim they would lose a lot of funding, that is true, and there is a potential conflict of interest there, but it has existed for ALL scientific endeavors! For every paper written, there are always other academics who try to bring it down, oppose each others viewpoints etc.
