Quote:
Originally Posted by Head416
Unsolicited advice - take it or leave it - I'd recommend calling it a poor argument if you don't like it rather than insulting the person. When you call people idiots you come off as an evident jerk.
[...]
I realize what I'm writing isn't evidence against the report, and I'm not trying to pretend that it is. It's my explanation of why I don't believe them. I also realize there's actually a chance they might be right. But I don't trust them, so I won't just take their word for it.
|
I'm old enough to dimly remember the global cooling scare in the 70's.
We like to think of scientists as being impartial, but they either work for corporations (supposedly evil), or academia (98%+ Dem/lib). If they want to continue getting paid or funded, they need to provide results their bosses want to hear.
Some eventually get fed up with all the politics and lies and leave:
News - Telegraph Blogs
US physics professor:
'Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life'
Sometimes, they get caught in the act of censorship, ad-hominem attacks and fabrication:
News - Telegraph Blogs
"William Connolley – a green party activist – took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling.
On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph.
He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band.
All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand.
When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred —
over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement."
At best, we're unsure if there is a global warming trend or not. 10, 20 or even 1,000 year trends upwards or downwards are common throughout history. Even less plausible is mankind's ability to affect these trends in any way. We already know that a single volcano eruption can cause more impact to the environment than the sum of human civilization combined, and we seem to get through those period OK, and quickly as well.
Anyway, this is getting PARF-y so I'll bow out, but I hope that people keep an open mind. This is not a sporting event where you pick a team and root for them right or wrong. We can enact policies that cripple economies and redistribute wealth to the undeserving that fund terror, genocide and repression.