Yes, the research and countless hours of fact finding by thousands of scientists working with data that people here don't actually have access to, using techniques that have been developed and refined over a century in fields that none of us have any training in must be incorrect because they are authority figures and the majority of them hold a particular view.
You could make the exact same case for catholic priests on the origin of mankind. Again, authority and popularity (or volume) has nothing to do with the truth. Because they are more familiar with the material, doesn't mean they are correct, and as the emails demonstrate, there is not a consensus, but a process of limiting scientific inquiry to manufacture a false consensus, through the silencing of dissent and alternative views within the scientific community.
As for the appeal to authority... Yes, let's disbelieve the scientists and rather believe news pundits and other people that have no actual training.
That is a strawman argument. I never suggested listening to news pundits or people completely unfamiliar with the topic.
I'd like to point out, a strawman is a dishonest argument. A deliberate misstating of the other party's position.
You realise how asinine that sounds, right?
Sure it is asinine. That is why you tried to attribute it to me falsely. To de-legitimize the points I have made, without addressing them directly. That you repeated the logical fallacies I pointed out, only makes your response less credible, at least in the opening.
Just because you couch it in what looks like objective logic doesn't make it so.
You do realize how ridiculous it is that you reject objective logic, then argue for scientific fact? That is my entire issue with folks like you. You treat science as a means to your own subjective quasi-religious social views. You don't treat science objectively. You aren't criticizing these guys for subverting the scientific process, but rather criticizing me for pointing out the illogic of the arguments presented.
Am I wrong for showing skepticism, which is the foundation of scientific inquiry, and pointing out the
acknowledged fraud?
About as scientific as scientology.
Strawman, red herring, fluff.
Now, I personally don't believe in anthropogenic climate change, but I do believe in actual real climate change which is demonstrably happening.
Of course, climate has always changed. It is a great example of chaos, the climate system is never repeatable or static. It is not meant to be. Life is not a static experience.
As such, I'm all for doing whatever we can to mitigate the effects. Frankly, I like eating food which needs to be grown, not having the fringes of my city burn to ash every Summer, and having drinking water fall from the sky rather than having to be processed and chlorinated.
I also like the idea of not having cities where breathing the air each day has a a similar affect on your lungs as smoking 1-4 cigarettes daily (i.e. Beijing & L.A, and yes, as a smoker I'm aware of the hypocrisy here, but I'm thinking of people that don't smoke) thanks to amazingly low emission standards, reefs that aren't bone white because of ocean acidification (which actually has been linked to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission), and fewer cumulative industrial effluent based toxins working their way into the foodchain.
Enable the free market. Environmental improvements are always tied to property ownership, as opposed to commons exploitation, or management by governments which have the wrong set of incentives (short term planning) to manage resources to the greatest efficiency and sustainability.
All of those sound like great reasons for us to actively limit our polluting ways, things which have been discussed over last 50 years (20 in simple to understand cartoon form for those that like green mullets and red boots)...
Let's remember, 40 years ago, the same warming alarmists were calling for an ice age by 2000. This is an ideological movement, tied to the eugenics movement at the beginning of the early 20th century, and the post WWII population control movement based in the UN.
But hey, "man made" global warming is a hoax, so let's just do absolutely nothing and continue to use resources that are demonstrably damaging the ecology in other ways that can be directly linked, correlated, and confirmed.
Another strawman. No one suggests doing nothing. And you do the debate a disservice by pretending it is that polar. I'm super environmentally conscious. But I am also aware that every time the watermelons (green on the outside, marxists on the inside) get a movement ginned up, millions of people die. Usually the poorest, whether it was when they banned DDT and malaria started killing on huge scales again, or the global food shortages worldwide as crops are converted for use as inefficient biofuels.
The sad part is that any real solution to all of this really is down to individuals to get going.
It's sad that you think it is a sad realization that the individual is the solution.
What a miserable, myopic, and collectivistic view of the humanity and the world to have.
