[ZoomerCretin]

You think climate science being driven by vague interests from every boogeyman the right gives you is more credible than the trillion dollar a year fossil fuel industry funding climate change denialism?

None of what you said is sourced. You are not a climatologist, nor are you a meteorologist. Unless you have some credential that allows you to speak from a position of authority, your words have zero value unless you have the sources to back them up. All of the science backs up climate change. Politicians and “tHe mEdIa” don’t have any interest at all in advancing policies to mitigate climate change beside a personal interest in enjoying a livable climate in the latter part of this century, as shown by how little they actually pay attention to this issue.

[morpheos137]

I don't need to be a meterologist or climate scientist to know that higher average temperatures mean more water vapor production (see high school physics vapor pressure is a function of temperature) and since what goes up must come down more vapor means more percipation on a global scale. So we can categorically say climate change does not cause drought on a global scale. It may cause regional droughts.

Increased percipitation as snow in polar regions increases the albedo of the earth. Clouds may increas the albedo of the earth depending on their altitude and composition.

You also provide no scientific sources and basically appeal to the supposed scientific authority of the media. The media is not a scientific authority. It is propaganda and entertainment. Anyway I don't have time for a flamewar. People should know though that the feedback effects of global warming and increased CO2 are unknown and difficult to model.

[taylorlapeyre]

If you want to stand behind the science, then you must also stand behind the fact that our climate models are faulty and inaccurate. I say that as a climate activist myself.