re: So many of you claim to be smart but deny climate change

I don't deny that the climate is changing.

I don't agree with those who think that humans are the primary driving force behind the changes, and I think that we overestimate our ability to reverse these changes.

The Earth is gonna do what the Earth is gonna do.

quote:

---

Yeah the crack in the ice shelf in Antarctica has expanded 11 miles in 6 days. This isn't normal.

---

you realize you're an idiot right?

The ice shelf Sevestre was studying is called Larsen C, and it now has a massive 90-mile crack running through it.

"The big rift is slicing the ice shelf from top to bottom," Sevestre says. It's now a third of a mile deep, and as wide across as 25 highway lanes.

But this is not just another sad climate change story. It's more complicated.

"A lot of things are going on deep inside the ice," says Adrian Luckman, a glaciologist at Swansea University in the U.K. He's also leading a project to track changes in the ice shelf.

But the crack in Larsen C seems to have happened on its own, for different reasons.

"This is probably not directly attributable to any warming in the region, although of course the warming won't have helped," says Luckman. "It's probably just simply a natural event that's just been waiting around to happen."

Ice Shelf Collapse

In 2002, most of the Antarctic's Larsen B ice shelf collapsed in just three weeks. It was the size of Rhode Island.

Larsen Ice Shelf

Larsen C has a bunch of cracks. All ice shelves do. This particular crack has been around since at least the 1960s. The unusual part is that in 2014, this crack — and only this crack — started growing in spurts. Why?

"Well, that is a little bit of a mystery and that's why it drew itself to our attention," says Luckman.

you're a goddamned idiot

and this is why we don't believe in man made global warming because idiots like you do.

quote:

---

OP, you are not smart. In addition to that problem, you lack enough of a STEM education to objectively understand numerous problems with climate change claims made by those you unthinkingly parrot.

---

If you are the one that is qualified to make that case, then go ahead and make it through the time tested peer review process. But until you submit your work, lets look at the data:

quote:

---

The articles have a total of 33,690 individual authors. The top ten countries represented, in order, are USA, England, China, Germany, Japan, Canada, Australia, France, Spain, and Netherlands. (The chart shows results through November 9th, 2012.)


Global warming deniers often claim that bias prevents them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. But 24 articles in 18 different journals, collectively making several different arguments against global warming, expose that claim as false. Articles rejecting global warming can be published, but those that have been have earned little support or notice, even from other deniers.

A few deniers have become well known from newspaper interviews, Congressional hearings, conferences of climate change critics, books, lectures, websites and the like. Their names are conspicuously rare among the authors of the rejecting articles. Like those authors, the prominent deniers must have no evidence that falsifies global warming.

---

LINK

LINK

If the side denying the scientific consensus is convinced of their arguments, they have a way to make their case: The peer review process. If the consensus is wrong, prove it. Put up for scrutiny peer reviewed data and let the rest of the scientific community judge.

And before anyone pulls the conspiracy card, revisit the first paragraph and note China was included in this number. You know, the worlds biggest polluter? The country with the most to lose by acknowledging the global consensus? A closed system where they could easily suppress or completely propagandize things if wanted.

Yet even China has done the homework and as such have decided pretty publicly, that if we step down from the Paris accords, they will gladly take our place . Taking with it the clout and leadership positioning that will provide their industries with the best seat at the table. Which is why Exxon, Shell, and other fuel industries have told Trump not to leave the table. That it is misguided, bad for America and even bad for them.

And its not just scientists, insurers and the military have done extensive research into the science because it is pivotal to their operational duties to know what risk factors are out there that could affect them.

quote:

---

Why can't we withdraw and then make cuts without being party to the agreement?

---

Because that won't transfer our wealth to other countries, entities, etc. and won't force us to pay our tax dollars into some global bureaucracy that will police "violators."

Where is the part about man causing Climate Change and man can reverse it? I must have missed it.

Dumb title op.

Yeah but for some reason Republicans flip out when you suggest coal is bad

quote:

---

my country

---

You should take it back.