/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11756225

>>10595328
Sorry if I'm disrupting your conversation

>>9968745

>>9808085

So, climate change has become a highly politicized issue and that has made the truth, at least for a layman like me, difficult to discern.

My main problem lies in that I am not adequately knowledgeable about climate science to be qualified to form opinions about climate change. Hence, I am reliant on reputable authorities on the issue to tell me what stance should be taken based on evidence. Since, to my knowledge, the majority of climate scientists advocate for anthropogenic climate change, I am compelled to do the same.

However, many people, that I must assume are more knowledgeable about the subject than me, claim that climate change is a natural part of long term weather patterns and that there is no evidence supporting anthropogenic climate change. I've also seen claims that, due to the central position of climate change in politics, there is monetary incentive for climate scientists to advocate for athropogenoc climate change, and that is why this appears to be the consensus among that community.

So, what stance is the logical conclusion to come to based on the evidence we have? Is there adequate evidence to assert that climate change is a result of human action?

doing my physics homework on adderall is actually a fucking blast tbqh

>>8527004
Well memed my intelectually gifted friend

>>8425830
> but aren't you scientists forced to spread knowledge
says who? why do you make things up like this?