I think a big reason that many US citizens are skeptical is because they tie in their political views with science. What I mean is that because Al Gore represents the Democratic party, many feel obligated to go against everything and anything he says, even when it comes to science, a field of it pure facts and observations, something totally unrelated to his politics. Just my thought.
First, I appreciate Bozeman and his scientific explanations. He does a good job being thorough and accurate. In this video, he makes the same unproven assertion that humans are making a "huge impact on temperature" but doesn't say how much is due to natural earth cycles. He does not and cannot say how much (quantify) humans are causing climate change because he does not know and makes an unscientific fact that humans are causing "huge" climate changes. Well...this is just plain amature. Bozeman...you drank the cool-aid. Shame. Notice those graphs...they are all wrong. The temperature has not risen for the past decade. Those studies are not independent. They share a common point for funding.
+william stockton Temperature rise in the past few decades have been drastically greater than the decades before then, and correlate very strongly with CO2 output by humans, which makes sense considering we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas through basic physics. The anomalous rate of temperature we find since the industrial revolution shows we are having a significant, substantial effect where natural cycles would not have otherwise. So his comments are perfectly justifiable. I don't know what graphs you have been looking at, but your assertion that temperature has not risen in the past decade is provably wrong. Official Nasa graphs, and graphs from Meteorological stations say otherwise. But i think you already know this, which is why you used the silly, baseless follow-argument of _"Those studies are not independent. They share a common point for funding."_. You don't want to admit those Nasa graphs are true, and so instead try and stir up Conspiracy Theories and unprovable political arguments to try and defend your position and stir up confusion. Which is intellectually dishonest of you. Those Nasa graphs are official. Face facts.
Nice video
I agree it would become more widely accepted if the people who publicised climate change were neutral or represented both left and right wing.
I think a big reason that many US citizens are skeptical is because they tie in their political views with science. What I mean is that because Al Gore represents the Democratic party, many feel obligated to go against everything and anything he says, even when it comes to science, a field of it pure facts and observations, something totally unrelated to his politics. Just my thought.
I lernd that humans need to slow down
Don't show this video. Fix it every ngss video, please.
First, I appreciate Bozeman and his scientific explanations. He does a good job being thorough and accurate.
In this video, he makes the same unproven assertion that humans are making a "huge impact on temperature" but doesn't say how much is due to natural earth cycles. He does not and cannot say how much (quantify) humans are causing climate change because he does not know and makes an unscientific fact that humans are causing "huge" climate changes. Well...this is just plain amature. Bozeman...you drank the cool-aid. Shame.
Notice those graphs...they are all wrong. The temperature has not risen for the past decade. Those studies are not independent. They share a common point for funding.
+william stockton
Temperature rise in the past few decades have been drastically greater than the decades before then, and correlate very strongly with CO2 output by humans, which makes sense considering we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas through basic physics. The anomalous rate of temperature we find since the industrial revolution shows we are having a significant, substantial effect where natural cycles would not have otherwise. So his comments are perfectly justifiable.
I don't know what graphs you have been looking at, but your assertion that temperature has not risen in the past decade is provably wrong. Official Nasa graphs, and graphs from Meteorological stations say otherwise.
But i think you already know this, which is why you used the silly, baseless follow-argument of _"Those studies are not independent. They share a common point for funding."_. You don't want to admit those Nasa graphs are true, and so instead try and stir up Conspiracy Theories and unprovable political arguments to try and defend your position and stir up confusion. Which is intellectually dishonest of you. Those Nasa graphs are official. Face facts.
Your opinions are a simple byproduct of your political affiliations,