zlacker

> That's the thing, I could use the same argument to believe in "god" by saying that priest spend their entire lives studying the matter so I should believe them when they say it exists. Yet I'm an atheist. You see where I'm getting at right?

The difference is called "empiricism". God is defined as something supernatural and unexplainable. Science is the opposite. Why do you think this is a good comparison?

>>Timon3+(OP)
You're falling in the assumption that the studies being done are actually right, and I questioned that as well.

>>travel+w4
It really feels like you are climate change denier trying to make it seem like you're not. It would have to be a massive conspiracy that spans multiple massive fields of science and has hundreds of thousands if not millions of scientists constantly doing something wrong intentionally or not. Your counter point is the equivalent of questioning the theory of relativity because you don't trust the decades worth of proof.

The science behind climate change is simple and more than 90% of the worlds experts in geology, ecology, climatology, oceanography, chemistry, physics, etc all are in agreement that global warming is real and caused by humans. Here's a FAQ from the times if you'd like a reference https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warmin...

>>travel+w4
I don't see any assumptions in my comment. Where did I make the assumption that "the studies being done are actually right"? If you can show that the existing studies have problems you're free to share those.

But let me ask you this. Can you think of a single thing you can't discard with this logic? One single thing.

>>travel+w4
Luckily Popper explained to us we have something in science called falsifiability. I suggest you try to falsify one single theory of our current climate science. Or, alternatively, show that any of the theories is unfalsifiable. Just going all Popper on you, because it’s needed.

By the way, much of our previous research on climate science has already been falsified, for them to be substituted for theories which show even stronger evidence for man-made climate change.