A scientist is studying the effect of glaciers on climate and feels that the melting of ice caps has produced global climate change. A climatologist says that global warming is not a problem with far-reaching consequences. An oceanographer feels that it is possible to build a giant machine to combat consequences of global warming. Which of these is the most likely reason the three scientists have different opinions on the consequences of global warming?
Stacey Warren - Expert brainly.com
Hey! We 've verified this expert answer for you, click below to unlock the details :)
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga.
Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus.
Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!
A.) They study different areas of science and have different scientific focuses.
B.) They did not discuss the issue among themselves.
C.) They do not have enough knowledge on the topic.
D.) They believe conflicting opinion strengthens science.
They all talk about global warming in a different view.
Scientist is discussing the cause of it.
Climatologist is discussing the effect of it.
Oceanographer is discussing the solutions of it.
They never even talk about it together.
A because one is saying how to improve while the other is saying the effects