> as opposed to your faith in hubristic science? science that has been bought and paid for time and time again for big money interests? are those just red herri

> as opposed to your faith in hubristic science? science that has been bought and paid for time and time again for big money interests? are those just red herrings and whataboutism as opposed to 'learn from history or repeat it'? you're using corporate science to justify arrogant status quoian perspectives. I expressly linked to experimental science dating to the 19th century. Not sure how that qualifies as 'corporate' or 'big money' science. There are other extant discussions of the subject that predate the influences you mention. If you're claiming bias in the other figures (the increase in CO2 or the temperature numbers), then it should be possible to produce counterexamples and more formal rationales about why they make sense. > > people who live along the coastline > you mean the millionaires who are constantly pushing the global warming myth? No. Just to pick a counterexample, Bangkok's elevation is 5 feet above sea level, and it's a city with ~10MM people. Lots more likelihood of catastrophic impact there than the US 'coastal elite' you seem to be alluding to.