The ways that deniers exploit any minor anomaly by using
cherry picked data, is truly insidious, but I think we need to also give some
attention to the bizarre scenarios and fictitious stories used to justify a
supposed government plot.
Thanks for pointing out that the fact that so many
scientists in different countries around the world all support the facts about
human caused global warming. A conspiracy that vast would truly require
suspending all reason to believe. And the fact that all major scientific
organizations around the world concur with what is happening, truly places this
issue in true perspective.
Even though, most of the climate projections from the 1970s
have been proven to be quite accurate, if the people behind the plot back then
were to be proven accurate, we can only assume that dumb luck has smiled on
them by actually providing the weather extremes that we are now seeing
throughout the world, and since most of the original climate scientists must
now be of advanced ages, they bought into an enormous diabolical plot that
would probably only benefit their grandchildren on the basis of making
incredible lucky guesses. Unless they took a time machine to the post 2000
world, they would have had no way to verify that their supposedly false
projections would come true--as many have.
The whole government conspiracy assumes that without
government grants, most climate scientists would have no way of making money,
but since when is it true that scientific research only examine one particular
issue--even if it had long ago been proven that global warming was false, I'll
wager that scientists would still have their hands full of various forms of
climate research involving other aspects of climate, or would be doing research
in entirely different fields. Besides how many times have we seen a research
scientist in any walk of life, living a rich and opulent lifestyle? The plot
would also, certainly not be a partisan one either, since many Republicans and
even several Republican President have been in power since climate change
became the subject of much research, so why would the GW Bush's administration
for example, not try to work with researchers to change their story. GW is
largely responsible for ignoring the Kyoto
agreement, and as an oil rich millionaire has no reason to want to place a
burden on big oil such as reducing their C02 emissions. Did you hear about any
massive numbers of scientists taking Bush's 8 years as a opportunity to declare
their freedom and renounce cruel liberal taskmasters--I didn't! But if this
falsehood becomes important enough for them to deny, I'm sure that deniers will
create some other fantastic spin to justify the existence of such an incredible
plot.
What is the most perplexing thing of all, is why average
Americans who are not very familiar with scientific knowledge of any kind, are
so willing to take the words of laymen and political opportunists who are
often employed by conservative think tanks and/or big oil? Everyone knows that
if we want our kidney stones removed we should consult an accredited surgeon,
but deniers have successfully circulated the idea that somehow those employed
by big oil and those funded by organizations which benefit from denial, are
more qualified to edify us, even if they have far more motives and special
interest backing to justify their lies than any typical research scientist. The
day this myth is shattered and really hits home, we may be on the way to a
world in which average people are aware of the truth--hopefully sooner than
later!
The deniers always lash back whenever someone accuses them of bribery from fossil fuel money that the scientists are being "bribed" by the government.
ReplyDeleteYou bring up a very good point. Even if AGW was false, climate change is still a very important field of study and the money would keep coming in anyways.
If you were to listen to the deniers, you would think climate science would cease to exist if it wasn't for climate change. The reality is climate scientists are there to learn about the climate and that is what they are going to do - with, or without, climate change.
ReplyDelete