Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sea Demon
Fair enough Tchocky. Just wanted to show that there is no consensus. There is indeed alot of disagreement and skepticism.
|
True, there is never 100% certainty, that would be silly.
However, in my experience there are many groups who are prejudiced towards a certain outcome, due to financial/political pressures, and these groups nearly always fall on the skeptic side of the argument.
Of course, there are legitimate objections to anthropogenic climate change, but these tend to get drowned out by prejudiced thinktanks and politicians in the pay of energy corporations. Such as the SPPI and our friend Inhofe. You just don't get meddling on this scale or nature on the other side. There is the odd story about modifying results while wrangling for research funds, but this is
nothing like the amount of money that hydrocarbon dealers put into the debate.
The great thing about science is that it only asks for your eyes, not your beliefs. Unfortunately it's seen as a political football by too many people, who are happy to hit their opponents for doing too much/too little about the problem while the Earth sweats itself past event horizon.
Regarding the original story, I'm a little too supicious of where it came from to take it very seriously. That may well change.