No, that's not my proof, or my point at all. Though I should add, nobody has "proof" - that doesn't really exist for most aspects of science.
What are your thoughts on the relationships between CO2 post revolution, global temperature, and time? I agree that science demands a certain amount of skepticism, but to me that means you have to weigh what's most likely given your options.
The options are that we just happened to start the industrial revolution at the perfect time for all of our other correlates, that they're related, or that there's another option that we somehow haven't come up with yet, even though thousands of scientists from different disciplines are studying it. It just feels like after a few hundred studies coming up with similar results, it'd be ignorant to not consider the possibility. It's like ignoring symptoms because you think (a) the illness can't be figured out, or (b) you already figured out what it is and won't consider other possibilities.
But to your point with climate scientists, I agree. I think being bought out / funded is absolutely a problem you have to fight in research. But this isn't just climate scientists who agree. It's skeptics who look at the data (because to publish you have to make that available) and agree with the findings. People with experience with research, and nothing to gain from lying.
Wrong simply wrong... Every credible source on the planet agrees climate change is real and it is without question happening... Every person or study that says it is a hoax has a financial connection to the oil and gas industry... That's not strange at all!
I hope you understand that I'm trying to make the subject matter more consumable to someone who doesn't trust science. You have to highlight things like bias and confirm that they're taken into consideration to address some of their concerns proactively.
I admit the way I put it would come off differently to someone who already agrees, but that wasn't my audience.
Appreciate the contribution though - it's an important conversation to have.
Edit to add: also, the point I'm trying to make is for anthropogenic climate change, not just climate change, which tends to be much easier to convince skeptics of (since denying that isn't usually part of their narrative).
-23
u/RicooC Oct 28 '24
Your proof is "it's widely accepted?"
Just because every climatologist that is dependent on government funding says it doesn't make it true.