Hackers just killed global warming
Out of context: Reply #69
- Started
- Last post
- 215 Responses
- raf0
Some people here seem to take people who take side of the scientists who don't agree with the antropogenic climate change theory for anti-environmentalists or... I don't know, pollution lovers? Better: Republican pollution lovers. This is very unjustified and more than a simplification, it's simply not true.
Do you think someone who is a global warming skeptic (denier is such a nasty, pejorative word) automatically loves to pollute?
I never had a car, have 3 recycling bins at home (including compost) and take half an hour walks down and back up the hill to throw glass and old clothes into their respective bins. I'm pretty sure most "deniers" I know have similar approach.
Most of all, I do think of the future of the world. And I'm not scared of a warming, I'm scared of the warming fearmongers.There a lot of environmental problems. Deforestation, toxic waste, millions of tons of regular waste, air pollution, water pollution, overfishing – that's just the start. Those are real problems, those things are really happening.
I don't see anyone disagreeing with those. I live on the coast and have to admit, love me some salmon for dinner. But hello, overfishing denial, anyone? Nope. It is quite clear for everyone the seas are being robbed.
I buy farmed if I can, btw.CO2, however, is not a pollutant and despite the propaganda, there is no agreement among scientists as to the role of human-produced CO2 in the atmosphere. There is, nonetheless, a gigantic agenda related to CO2 issues, fat billions to be squeezed out of people.
People are aware something stinks in the CO2 area, that's why there is such a strong opposition.
The anti-CO2 propaganda outperforms anti-pollution voices greatly, something's not on.Far from what souljar 001 suggests, those stolen letters are not leading to conclusions themselves, they are rather something of a tipping point. They show, among other things, that those scientists were likely to bend the data to produce results expected of them. They also show that "peer review process" is full of "peer pressure" and in the end, it all boils down to grant money.