I don't care if people believe in, or disbelieve in AGW theory: there's evidence to support at least some of both sides points. I do care that we can't even talk about it, because so many people are 100% sure that anyone who doesn't agree with them is greedy, evil, uninformed, and destroying the planet. The truth is far more nuanced.
Most Climate Skeptics I know, came to their position by being more informed than the other side. They understand the basics of CO2, where the entire Greenhouse Effect ranks in the list of Climate Forcing Factors, or the facts about our Climate History, Ocean Rise, Glacial Melt, and Hurricanes. Whereas I can't say the same for the other side. (To be fair, it's the 95% of vocal Climate Advocates that give the rest a bad name).
What the AGW advocates know is:
- what the media and celebrities like Leonardo Dicaprio have told them
- since they don't check facts, they believe there's unanimity in AGW theory (some 97% Climate Consensus) which is completely debunked.
- many have been trained to reflexively write off all Climate Skeptics as kooks or paid shills, without ever looking at their Resume's of achievements, and why they put their reputations on the line
- most ignore that the Climate Industrial Complex is a bunch of scientists and politicians that can parlay fear-mongering into votes, money and power (the modern snake-oil salesman).
Thus when we have a non-event like backing out of the Paris Climate Accord, even though it did couldn't have made the slightest difference in the actual climate, the seals have been trained to bark on cue.
Years ago, I did a Toastmasters Speech on Climate Change. There was a Documentary called The Climate Hustle (2016): while only OK, if a viewer isn't bored by the ground it covered, then they are not qualified to have an informed opinion.
Here's a few Climate Links and Climate Quotes, and finally Climate Memes. The Meme's aren't very constructive (just humorously mocking the hypocrisy and ignorance of the loudest advocates). But if you the other side is comparing scientific skepticism to Holocaust denial, then all that's left is to mock them back.
A question I often ask, is if I can point out anything that the other side doesn't know, is why? If we were having an honest discussion, then the best way to address that, is to present the other sides strongest arguments, then refute it. Why then has the AGW not done that, and gone with exaggerations, constructs and ad hominem's instead?
If you believe a slew of articles that are out there like these Tipping Point articles , then earth has passed the carbon tipping point (400 ppm of CO2, which we cross the other day), which means 6-7° of more warming is coming, which will; destroy humanity, cook off the planet, flood our cities, and we're doomed. Good, now maybe the know-nothings will shut the hell up and let us get on with our lives, while they're repeatedly proven wrong over the coming decades, just like they have been for the last couple hundred years.
Places that use the 97% Scientific Consensus for AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) fall into one of two groups: (a) those completely unaware of where that comes from (b) those that are dishonest polemics who know how shoddy the claim is, but they publish them anyway. There really isn't a lot of middle ground on this one. The actual consensus is surprisingly small, and the studies that say otherwise are embarrassingly bad, and the one thing that most Scientists seem to have a stronger consensus on, is that IPCC and the media are misleading the public (and overhyping things).
Extension:DynamicPageList (DPL), version 3.1.3: Warning: No results.