0
5

[–] Stavon 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

What a nice video on how people are manipulated.

0
4

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

The only thing I disagree about in this is the idea that scientists don't spread alarmism. People think of science as being some pure quest for truth, it's not, it's a cutthroat quest for funding, which comes from one of three groups:

  • The public: You have to make your research seem humanitarian and lifesaving

  • Businesses: You have to make your research seem profitable

  • Government (the largest one): You have to make your funding politically appealing

In softer sciences (any science where opinion plays more of a part than data), results often reflect demand. Climate science is no different, there is huge demand for climate alarmism right now (mostly as a thinly veiled excuse to hate capitalism and love state-socialism) so the research mostly reflects that, especially among up and coming researchers without tenure.

Citing this "consensus" as evidence of the truth is about as meaningful as citing the number of ads for Hillary Clinton as evidence she's the best candidate. It's a basic misunderstanding of the role many scientists and public funding for science play in modern society.

1
0

[–] hambrehombre 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

there is huge demand for climate alarmism right now

Do you actually have experience writing grants in science? Climate change is extremely cliche. Grant reviewers hate hearing about it. Funding for science is very low currently. Invoking climate change is actually correlated with reduced science funding.

0
2

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

You've tried that one before. It didn't work last time either.

0
3

[–] b0utch 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

the "truth" yeah right.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] HoocOtt 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Based on the weak argument that the current models used by the IPCC couldn't reproduce the warming from about 1978 to 1998 without some forcing, and that the only forcing that they could think of was man. Even this argument assumes that these models adequately deal with natural internal variability—that is, such naturally occurring cycles as El Niño, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, etc.

Yet articles from major modeling centers acknowledged that the failure of these models to anticipate the absence of warming for the past dozen years was due to the failure of these models to account for this natural internal variability. Thus even the basis for the weak IPCC argument for anthropogenic climate change was shown to be false.