Don't you see? The other scientists are part of the coverup! Scientists can't be trusted not to falsify information regularly! The peer review process is a sham! The only truly impartial scientists we can trust are the ones funded by the oil companies.
Yeah, pretty much. No-one is denying that the Earth's climate is warming up. There are some people challenging the idea that the warming is due to human activities. If you can't even characterize the debate properly, you forfeit a lot of credibility.
How is that a misrepresentation? It's entirely possibly that the people who spend their lives studying the Earth's climate, climate change, when, where and how the Earth's climate changed in the past and what factors are being introduced, know a little bit more than arm chair climatologists and they are actually characterizing the debate properly whether you want to accept it or not.
Because it paints anyone who questions the divine church of global warming as just ignorantly denying the subject entirely, rather than reacting with reasoned skepticism as to the degree of man's impact, and the ability of any environmental measure's ability to mitigate it.
There is a brow-beating consensus that would have us gratefully fill in any gaps in theory or empirical data with faith. Faith that there is no hidden agenda, no proceeding from preconcieved conclusions, no using the subject to advance other causes, faith that alphabet soup credentials prove with absolute certainty that their is nothing but our own best interests at issue here.
How do you figure? From a faction which says, "Trust us, we're telling the truth" while, very unscientifically, summarily dismissing alternate climate theories out of hand, the religion analogy is really quite fitting.
What I love about the Church of There's No Such Thing as Climate Change is their bizarre assumption that unless 100% of climatologists hew to a single point of view, all of the research is bogus. Do they apply that rubric to any other science? They do not. Considering how many of them also belong to the Church of the Cherry-Picked Christianity, it's amusing.
Show me one fucking person here who is claiming "there is no such thing as climate change". Just one person, you dissembling little crapweasel.
I'd love to drop you into the middle of a cancer therapy advisory board meeting (assuming you'd survive the Africa scenario I'd drop you into first) and watch you watching them questioning each other's data. It's kind of like the Red Room. Doctor #1 presents his PowerPoint presentation on non-small cell lung cancer, and concludes with "Any questions?" Doctor #2 lunges out of his seat at the back of the room and approaches the mic in the aisle. "For starters, you're a fucking idiot! No one uses carboplatin in non-small cell anymore, and for another thing..." You'd plotz. Because everyone agrees in medicine, right? Everyone agrees in any science, right? Tell us how it is on your world.
Until everyone stops arguing whether or not it's happening or what's causing, there will never be any effort to counteract it - whether it's stopping it or guarding humanity against it. On the upside, a million years from now, we will live again through fossil fuels, just like we use the dinosaurs now.
That's inane. The "argument" is supposed to be part of the scientific method. That's the whole point. Different theories are examined in detail to make sure that whatever is done is the best solution. The fact that a consensus was declared summarily is counter-productive to that end.
Nobody can say with any confidence that we can counteract it. But we're supposed to be willing to sacrifice just in case it might make some miniscule difference. And it's just an innocent coincidence that some of those sacrifices advance other ideological agendas.
They don't have to be ideological differences. American politics and those who wish to keep their capitalistic empires are making it an ideological agenda. These scientists are just like every other group of people every where else in the world and have differing political ideologies. The do have a common goal, tho - scientific research.
You've been asleep the past few decades by making such a ridiculous claim. There have been many things done to try and "stop" global warming /climate change. The catalytic converter being required on cars is one great example of that. Requiring the big rigs be redesigned with things like DEF is another.
They do as long as anyone who dares question the cost and inconvenience of any supposed environmental measure is shouted down as an ignorant, short-sighted "denier." No worse than those who wish to use "environmentalism" to advance their pet "progressive" global economic policy. "Why does environmental policy have to be a vehicle to redistribute wealth to the third world? How can you even ask that? Why do you hate brown people??! Racist!!!" They're just as corruptible, succeptible to arrogant presumption, and prone to hidden agendas as anyone else.
The "cost" and "government subsidies" are continually brought up in opposition to research into new technologies for renewable energy. But, no one ever mentions the government subsidies going toward fossil fuel energy companies. Why is that? I thought that was included in the term "American politics", but just in case anyone is under the misimpression that I'm looking at this from a 'Democratic" point of view, yes, that type of dishonesty is just as bad as the other. yes, but 97 percent?
This 'climategate' thing was always a non-starter, obviously and from the start. Those who jumped on its bandwagon did so because they wanted the bandwagon to exist, not because the arguments were convincing.
You would have to ask the people making those decisions. If it were up to me there would be no subsidies or tarrifs. I would say 100% of human beings are corruptible bullshitters to some degree. The irony is killing me..
Of course 100% of people are corruptible. But when is the last time you saw 97% of any one group make a decision to lie, cheat and steal? - besides Congress, naturally.
Shifty statement from an untrustworthy article. Caused entirely by humans? Never happened before we came along? BULLSHIT!!! Resorting to oversimplified distortions like that calls into question every single fucking thing a person has to say.
Hell yeah!!! How the fuck do these idiots explain all the temperature swings when humans weren't around? Climate on Earth changes. Whether humans are here or not. Greenland wasn't always frozen over and white. As recently as the Middle Ages it was nothing but the color GREEN (fields of green grass) which is why the fucking Vikings, the first to land there, called it Greenland. The North Polar region wasn't totally frozen over. The North Sea wasn't the monster area it is now (or else the Vikings would have never made it to Greenland in their boats). Things were warmer all over the planet. Then it got cooler. Now it's getting hotter. You can go all the way back to the dinosaurs and even before them and see that Earth's climate has never been static. We go through temperature changes on a regular basis. It's only arrogant fucks who think humans are the cause of it and that we humans have the ability to destroy the planet.
This article is not the entirety of the scientists research. Yes, it's an oversimplified statement for the masses. If you really want to know the extent, read their research. When someone asks you your job, do you go into detail about what you do? No. You give an oversimplified statement. If they want to know more, they'll ask.
That's a weaselly excuse for scientists. It's their primary function to explain in detail, and more importantly, to have airtight citation and research to back up anything which they proclaim as, "fact". When it comes to science, they don't get to be cursory, no matter if the explanation is delivered "to the masses" (which is, in itself, an insult).
