TFLYTSNBN wrote:The E wrote:Look at you not understanding how Science works.
Okay dumkopf.
Oh look at you, calling me an idiot in my language (except, you're not: The word is "dummkopf"). Such an exemplar of rational thought and considered argument you are.
Anyway, amongst people who deny science (be they young earth creationists like smr or DDHv, be they climate change deniers like you), there are a few common complaints against science that reappear constantly, and are usually indicative of the person complaining being scientifically illiterate or dishonest. One is "It's only a theory", where people claim that just because a scientist refuses to use the word "fact", they are not speaking factually, and that whatever the theory is or says can be ignored.
The other, the one you're doing right now, is "Scientists are always changing their stories and can't be trusted". This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how scientific knowledge gets developed, that is, iteratively and through constant refinement as more data becomes available.
So, TFLY, what is it? Do you misunderstand science, or are you being dishonest?
Please, do the math rather than post nasty insults or have a toddler temper tantrum.
Unlike you, I will openly admit to not being a scientist. I do not know climatology enough to have a valid opinion on the subject, and I do not have the time to pursue a degree in the field to have that opinion.
What I do know is that there is overwhelming consensus amongst the people who do have the degrees, who have done the science and the math, that climate change is real, that it is heavily influenced by human action, that it will cause catastrophies in the near future, and that we thus better be preparing to mitigate the damage.