Governments. through increased revenues from carbon taxes. And scientists who gain extra funding from governments if they co-operate and come up with the correct supporting data..

Best Answer

I'm legitimately curious about this because I have not heard any plausible, let alone convincing arguments about why global warming would be a hoax. It's a fabrication in order to... raise taxes? The amount of effort and funding it would take to fabricate nearly all climatology research and stifle all dissent worldwide boggles the mind. It would be the greatest conspiracy in human history.
Meanwhile, it's very simple to follow the money when it comes to climate change denial.

Best Answer
Best Answer
Best Answer

The idea that global warming is a 'conspiracy' is not really all that intelligent - as this question illustrates.

Best Answer

lol...But ad hominem attacks that fail to address the data are?

Best Answer

Sorry thought you were making the point that there really isn't sufficient motive for the world's scientists to create a conspiracy.
The conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summarized:
* Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[5]
* Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[6]
* Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[7] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[7] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.[7]
* The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.[8]
* The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).[9]

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[12] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

Best Answer

What does the data say versus a flawed computer model? Our Nasa observations wrong? Do we have global cooing since 1997 caused by global warming? For those who look past the hype and at the actual data they will be astonished at this complete "The Sky is falling " scam.

Best Answer

'A' flawed computer model? You are using that to refer to all the multiple modellings based on multiple data sources agreed on by the major scientific bodies globally? It really sounds like you are looking at a very selected set of data. Please answer your own question - why would the world's scientists conspire to 'scam' everyone?

Best Answer
Best Answer

Thanks, let me have a proper look before I respond.

Best Answer

Ok, a whole range of stuff, a lot of it discredited, such as the medieval warm period and the rather poor Climatic Research Unit email controversy. We aren't going to agree, obviously, and there is little space in here for lots of data. But at a high level: 1. Honestly: were you open on the question of climate change and the evidence convinced you to be skeptical? Or were you already skeptical and found voices to confirm your belief? 2. The idea that the have majority of the world's scientists have absolutely no intellectual integrity and either deceptively or naively adopted this is simply not credible. Eugenics is a rather poor comparison because a) It is not a scientific finding, it is a philosophy served by science; b) Only ever supported by small numbers of scientists by comparison.

Best Answer
4 More Responses

Carbon Credit Traders and the politicians they pay to play.

Best Answer

Democrats.

Best Answer

Related Questions