|
|
|
|
|
by systemvoltage
1458 days ago
|
|
I didn’t spend more time looking for more and I’m not interested in defending myself. The main general point still stands. All I’m asking for is some scrutiny. By the time information reaches from scientists to reporters and policy makers, there is a lot of malaise and omission of inconvenient truths. We need more checks and balances. Climate alarmicism is getting out of control. It's become a religion. Scientists that want to report inconvenient results are terrified. Edit: I found some more: https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/50-years-of-failed-doomsday-e... |
|
You just want to throw out accusations without evidence and you're complaining about "climate alarmicism" not getting enough scrutiny?
> Scientists that want to report inconvenient results are terrified.
This is an oft-repeated claim by people engaged in climate denialism, but it's a lie. A conspiracy theory without evidence. Where are all these terrified scientists? Who has been sanctioned for presenting contrary views?
A friend of mine was a climate sceptic. He started a PhD looking at glaciers and ice cores. He was expecting to experience some friction pushing back against the climate orthodoxy, but after looking through the data he changed his mind. He realised our models of the climate were consistent with the evidence.
Consider: if your "terrified scientists" theory was incorrect, and actually scientists did believe that the standard models are correct, wouldn't that state of affairs look identical to what is actually occurring today?