SonicFlyer

There are many scientists that disagree with this. It isn't conclusive or settled.

Hint: the sun isn't constant, it changes. And when it does it causes climate change on all of the planets in the solar system. Climate is dynamic and has been since the beginning. It may not even be possible to measure any human effect on it, much less determine conclusively that humans are affecting it.

Seriously, think critically.

2StgTurbine

News flash: Pilots are experts in epidemiology now. We haven't been experts in climate change since 2016.

Climategate--The Final Chapter

OOfff

if only climate scientists had thought to consider natural changes in their research. They probably just forgot to do so like a bunch of dummies.

SonicFlyer

You realize that most of them work for the government, right?
Which means they follow the government's agenda.

contrails12

Different scientists from virtually every country with various funding sources including scientists from Exxon came to the same conclusion. You’re bananas

contrails12

[firm landing at cruise ship port city airport]

overweight passenger #1:

“yep! Didn’t factor in the crosswind on that landing. These pilots should listen to me! I’m going to make a YouTube video about how the pilots are incompetent”

furloughfuntime

There's a difference between thinking critically and being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. You have fallen into the camp of tin foil hats and very clearly do not understand the scientific process. Your ignorance is not equivalent to the scientific conclusions of private and public organizations across the world.

It is telling that you can't find a single reputable source to support your position. Not even one. Is there any evidence you can post? Or is this all feelings and opinions for you? Merely saying "the sun causes climate change" and "what about Mars" just makes you look like a fool. You are not more clever than 99.9% of scientists. You are just an idiot.

You are on the same level as those who believe in chem trails.

This is not true. Most scientists don't "work" for the government. Most are employed by private and public universities across the country, and while public funding is frequently used in scientific endeavors, that doesn't mean there is some coordinated effort to produce outcomes.

In any case, what is "the government's agenda"? What does that even mean? Are you referring to the priorities of different administrations? Are you referring to the potential biases of career public servants? Is it whoever is in charge of the House or Senate? What is it? For a guy imploring us to "think critically," you sure are spewing nothing but nonsense.

Please, oh enlightened one, shine the light of your secret knowledge on us ignorant fools

2StgTurbine

It's simple. Scientists can easily be bought with that sweet sweet grant money. Those poor little oil companies just can't offer anything even close

labbats

To say that humans have had no effect on the global system is wrong, but so is the assumption that our being on this planet for 0.00001% of its life is the issue many make it out to be.

City dwellers envision cities across the world instead of endless oceans and try and impose rules that don’t fit. Don’t meet many humans in the Sahara, Tundra or even North Dakota up in arms about climate change like you do those in Manhattan.

LumberJack

The increase in severe storms damaging crops is very real, very human caused, and very upsetting to North Dakotans. Can't speak for the Sahara and Tundra folks.

You do realize that most of Earth's history was coagulation of dust right? Then a long period of molten crust equivalent to walking on warm cookie dough. It makes no difference how old the world is compared to our time span.