8 ms·

The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science

37 points by denzil_correa 11y ago

taylodl 11y ago
"These huge green multinationals, with budgets in the hundreds of millions of dollars, have now systematically infiltrated science," The energy companies denying anthropomorphic climate change have much larger budgets and a vested interest in convincing everyone everything is fine, there's no need to change anything, so they can continue on with their current business model. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing - after all the global climate change advocates have done a pretty good job of convincing everyone the climate is changing but what they haven't done is looked at whether the change will be net positive or net negative. The confirmation bias here is they appear to be only looking for the negative since it's assumed change is bad. Finally, the author of this article forgot to mention one anecdote not supporting his claim - the link between smoking and cancer. The omission leads me to believe he has his own agenda he's pushing, or to be polite, has his own confirmation bias.
- jayess 11y ago
  I think you mean to use the word anthropogenic, not anthropomorphic.
  - MCRed 11y ago
    Anyone who disagrees with him is a "Denier". Because those who know science gain credibility by presuming their hypothesis are facts.... therefore his assertion of anthropomorphism is undeniable!
- Justsignedup 11y ago
  He makes an excellent point in the beginning, to gain some trust, then follows the exact formula he describes.
  - johnchristopher 11y ago
    I can't tell if you are referring to parent's message or the article.
  - tim333 11y ago
    I'm not sure which "exact same formula" you are referring to but my take was he agrees the possible outcomes cover a "huge range, from marginally beneficial to terrifyingly harmful, so it is hardly a consensus of danger, and if you look at the 'probability density functions' of climate sensitivity, they always cluster towards the lower end." And he opposes people who will only countenance an extreme position, either being alarmist or denying everything. He doesn't really seem to deviate much from that position throughout the article. I have a lot of sympathy for this - the probabilities density functions clustering towards the lower end isn't the most snappy of slogans but seems to be the truth unlike more extreme viewpoints.
- mikeash 11y ago
  Are you sure that it's confirmation bias causing everyone to focus on the negatives, rather than climate change actually being mostly negatives?
  - johnchristopher 11y ago
    I believe it's the next line of defense after "there is not climate change", "it's not that much", "it's not caused by humans".
    - mikeash 11y ago
      Definitely. What I really love is when someone jumps freely between them. "It'll be great, we can grow grapes in Newfoundland again, we should burn more coal!" And then two minutes later they're talking about how there's no demonstrated link between CO2 and warmer temperatures.
      - nsxwolf 11y ago
        I usually hear it as "There's no link... but if I'm wrong, grapes in Newfoundland", which is different than freely jumping between them.
- ocschwar 11y ago
  "The energy companies denying anthropomorphic climate change have much larger budgets and a vested interest in convincing everyone everything is fine, there's no need to change anything, so they can continue on with their current business model." It's pretty telling that these companies have spent well over 100 million in recent years for propaganda, and a grand total of ONE grant of 200K for scientific research. And when that grant concluded global warming is real and anthropogenic, that was the end of industry funded research. Now it's nothing but propaganda.
  - aetherson 11y ago
    Doesn't that kind of imply to you that energy companies or whoever have not systematically infiltrated science, as the author of this article says that green organizations have? I feel like this thread goes: Original author: "Green movements with deep pockets have infiltrated science!" Poster: "Yeah, but energy companies have even deeper pockets [so it's okay if people with obvious financial incentives to believe that climate change deserves drastic action are given gatekeeper positions in science.]" Another poster: "Yeah, and check it out! The deep-pocketed energy companies don't even get involved with science!" ...
    - ocschwar 11y ago
      It implies to me that nothing's infiltrated science except scientists. It shows to me that the fossil fuel lobby knows AGW is real, knows that if they hire any scientists to look at the issue, those scientists will once again confirm that AGW is real, and so they prefer to fund denialism. That's the thing: you can have debates and disagreements, but physical reality does take sides. [update] You're a citizen. You can read the scientific papers on AGW regardless of whether they're used by the IPCC for their own papers. Might I suggest you do that?
      - MCRed 11y ago
        What about the reports from the UN IPCC That misrepresented the claims of scientists named in the reports? (To the Scientists protests.) In fact, IPCC reports-- which are not science but political propaganda-- are the sum total of "science" that AGW proponents rely on when making their political claims (And their claim that "Science" agrees with them, which they think justifies calling anyone who disagrees with the hypothesis by the epithet of "denier")
- j_baker 11y ago
  I'll say one thing: I think that there really are a number of business groups with vested interests in skewing the science one way or the other. On one hand, you have the Koch brothers who want you to believe global warming is a non-issue and that everything will be fine so keep burning all the fossil fuels you want. On the other hand, green energy companies such as Solar City who have a vested interest in convincing everyone that the world will end unless you install their solar panels on your roof. I'm not certain I really agree with either end of the spectrum.
  - Daishiman 11y ago
    The difference is that Solar City dudes are basing their claims on published, respectable research. Very likely, they're being too optimistic.
- MCRed 11y ago
  The government has a much larger budget and a vested interest in convincing everyone that things are not fine. Both the UN, which is seeking the ability to impose a global carbon tax-- the first step to being a world government-- and local governments such as the US Federal government which seeks the ability to have further control over the economy. Al Gore invested a great deal of money in a carbon trading exchange that would have made him billions if the US Government had passed the legislation he was trying to get passed during the height of the "Inconvenient Truth" era. The idea that only those with results that disagree with AGW have large budgets and vested interests is manifestly false. And silly. Edit: You can't have a discussion on hacker news of an intellectual nature because people use the down vote button to bury and silence those who disagree with their political dogma. As a result, Hacker News, day by day, becomes more of an echo chamber, and as a result will likely end up like slashdot. IS that what you want? Are you really so insecure that you cannot tolerate well made arguments that you disagree with?
  - ocschwar 11y ago
    "The government" ? There are over 40 developed countries whose governments fund scientific research. Several of them have heads of state who would love to find evidence against AGW: Canada and Australia come to mind. Angela Merkel would love to find evidence that the coal mining way of life in East Germany isn't a problem. (But she knows not to fight against scientific evidence.) Our own government had a republican president not so long ago. Again, if there was any avenue of scientific research that could find evidence against AGW, there would be money to fund it, be it from governments or corporations. Deniers have spent over 100M on propaganda in recent years. That's a lot of money that could have gone towards research if there was any to be done. There was exactly one attempt to do that, with the grant given to Richard Muller at Berkeley. That blew up in the denier's faces, and they're never doing that again. [update] "When you resort to calling people who disagree with your hypothesis "deniers" then..." I am calling them deniers because they have ample funds with which to find evidence for their case, and they are refraining from doing so. [update] "Thanks for conceding that there are 40 governments putting money" I did not say "40 governments putting money into the other side." I said "40 governments funding science." And as I pointed out, the governments of Australia and Canada would love to find evidence against AGW. And yet government funded scientists in both countries continue to find evidence for it. Our own government under George W. Bush would have loved to find evidence against AGW. And yet our scientists in NASA, NOAA, and academia, were finding evidence for it the entire time.
- zzalpha 11y ago
  but what they haven't done is looked at whether the change will be net positive or net negative. That's actually quite rational. From a government policy perspective, what matters is the negatives, because it's the negatives that will require human action to cope. The most notable example, of course, is rising sea levels as a result of melting polar ice and general thermal expansion, which threatens billions of people who live in coastal areas. Whether or not northern Canada turns into a breadbasket doesn't help a Malaysian or Miami resident when the land their homes are built on becomes the new seafloor.
  - MCRed 11y ago
    .... and now you see their motive. "Human Action" means Government Action which means power.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - zzalpha 11y ago
      Let's ignore the whole anthropogenic-or-not question. Are you saying you believe that global average temperatures aren't increasing? Or are you saying you believe they are, but we shouldn't do anything about it and just live with whatever consequences come our way? Fundamentally I just don't understand your position. If you genuinely believe global average temperatures aren't rising, well, there's not much to argue about. The evidence is in. Even the skeptics generally accept climate change is occurring, even if they don't agree about why. Holding a position that's objectively contrary to all current evidence is a position of faith rather than reason. If you accept that climate change is occurring, but that humans aren't the cause, and your argument is we should simply do nothing because OMG GOVERNMENT, well, again, there's not much to argue about. That's a fundamentally faith-based position as well, as it argues that the death and displacement of billions is better than governments empowered to offset those effects. I can't begin to even fathom that claim. It requires a distrust of government that I can't begin to comprehend... which has its irony, given it was the government that created the very medium upon which we're having this discussion. I suppose the last option is that you're just a troll, but I'll be generous and assume that's not the case and that rational discourse is, in fact, possible.
- ZeroGravitas 11y ago
  Worth noting that not only don't the 6 largest energy companies in Europe deny anthropogenic climate change, they're actively calling for a carbon tax to combat it. They claim that the oil and gas companies in the US would join them if the coal lobby wasn't so strong in the US.
Daishiman 11y ago
This article is a fucking damage to science.
coldcode 11y ago
The worse problem these days is knowing what articles or even research to believe, because it is so damn easy to write anything on the internet that recognizing BS or truth is becoming almost impossible. When the web appeared many of us thought that truth would be easier to see, but in reality it just meant that the noise was more easily generated.
- merpnderp 11y ago
  I just downloaded the RSS data and wrote an R script to find the trend. It's fun to play with the numbers yourself and get an idea of the only hard temperature numbers we have. The web allowed me to get the data in a matter of seconds. https://gist.github.com/merpnderp/91646625546cba7a1e70 https://gist.github.com/merpnderp/91646625546cba7a1e70
  - MCRed 11y ago
    How do you get access to numbers that are not corrupted by the Mann "Algorithm" which applies "corrections"? (these corrections force growth in temperature results starting in the industrial era... which, it so happens to turn out, account for the warming.) If your data is really hard numbers (and from sources not subject to the heat island effect) I'd guess you'd find no warming. (Well other than solar cycles, etc.) Edit: Yes, yes, please down vote this comment talking about actual science stuff. Keep up the brigade. I'm not spamming, I'm just making points that make you unhappy because they disagree with your political dogma. I'm not sorry. You are being anti-intellectual. Your anti-intellectualism doesn't shame me. It should shame you.
    - merpnderp 11y ago
      The RSS data is just since 1979 and is based on radiation given off by different levels of the atmosphere. There have been some adjustments to the data based on changes in the satellites' heights, but this is mostly non-controversial. Download the data and run my script. It will be fun and "sciencey". http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurem... [EDIT] I don't have to the mod points to downvote anyone :)
mikeash 11y ago
This article follows a common tactic of focusing on nutcases on the extremist fringe of global warming "believers," and attempting to use false equivalence to make climate change deniers look reasonable by comparison. Of course there are nutcases on the "believers" side just as there are on the "deniers" side. The difference is that the nutcases on the "deniers" side are actually mainstream in the political world. On the "believers" side, the fringe is ignored or tolerated, while the mainstream talk is measured and based on fact. On the "deniers" side there's nothing but fringe.
MCRed 11y ago
First it was called "Global Warming", then when the planet cooled after the end of the local solar cycle they started calling it "Climate Change" -- because you can't deny the climate changes. And anyone who disagrees with AGW is labeled a "denier". I think that even AGW proponents know the science is not on their side-- they just don't care, because they want more government power over the economy. Demonizing a substance created by your very breath easily leads to pretty much the ultimate in tyrannical power.
- jacobolus 11y ago
  That’s a load of crap. International organizations call it “climate change” because the effects are much broader than increased temperature, but also include changes to air and ocean currents, precipitation levels, sea level rise, and a rise in average global temperatures isn’t uniform over the globe. The term “climate change” has been in use by scientists since the 50s, and the term “global warming” was introduced in Broeker’s 1975 paper “Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?” http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/files/2009/10/broeckerglobalwarming75.pdf http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/files/2009/10/broeckerglobalwar... Both terms have been in wide use since that time. No one has abandoned the term “global warming”, which is still an apt description of the fundamental change.
  - MCRed 11y ago
    Sigh. Yeah, sure. You want to do an analysis of newspaper headlines over the past 30 years? You think they will agree with you? Cause I know they won't. Also, calling people denier is proof positive of my point. The down vote brigades are just icing on the cake. You guys don't care about science, you reject the scientific method completely, and you rely on propaganda, demonization and silencing your critics. If the science was on your side, why the need for such dishonesty?
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - waterlesscloud 11y ago

37 points by denzil_correa 11y ago

"These huge green multinationals, with budgets in the hundreds of millions of dollars, have now systematically infiltrated science," The energy companies denying anthropomorphic climate change have much larger budgets and a vested interest in convincing everyone everything is fine, there's no need to change anything, so they can continue on with their current business model. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing - after all the global climate change advocates have done a pretty good job of convincing everyone the climate is changing but what they haven't done is looked at whether the change will be net positive or net negative. The confirmation bias here is they appear to be only looking for the negative since it's assumed change is bad. Finally, the author of this article forgot to mention one anecdote not supporting his claim - the link between smoking and cancer. The omission leads me to believe he has his own agenda he's pushing, or to be polite, has his own confirmation bias.

jayess 11y ago
I think you mean to use the word anthropogenic, not anthropomorphic.
- MCRed 11y ago
  Anyone who disagrees with him is a "Denier". Because those who know science gain credibility by presuming their hypothesis are facts.... therefore his assertion of anthropomorphism is undeniable!
Justsignedup 11y ago
He makes an excellent point in the beginning, to gain some trust, then follows the exact formula he describes.
- johnchristopher 11y ago
  I can't tell if you are referring to parent's message or the article.
- tim333 11y ago
  I'm not sure which "exact same formula" you are referring to but my take was he agrees the possible outcomes cover a "huge range, from marginally beneficial to terrifyingly harmful, so it is hardly a consensus of danger, and if you look at the 'probability density functions' of climate sensitivity, they always cluster towards the lower end." And he opposes people who will only countenance an extreme position, either being alarmist or denying everything. He doesn't really seem to deviate much from that position throughout the article. I have a lot of sympathy for this - the probabilities density functions clustering towards the lower end isn't the most snappy of slogans but seems to be the truth unlike more extreme viewpoints.
mikeash 11y ago
Are you sure that it's confirmation bias causing everyone to focus on the negatives, rather than climate change actually being mostly negatives?
- johnchristopher 11y ago
  I believe it's the next line of defense after "there is not climate change", "it's not that much", "it's not caused by humans".
  - mikeash 11y ago
    Definitely. What I really love is when someone jumps freely between them. "It'll be great, we can grow grapes in Newfoundland again, we should burn more coal!" And then two minutes later they're talking about how there's no demonstrated link between CO2 and warmer temperatures.
    - nsxwolf 11y ago
      I usually hear it as "There's no link... but if I'm wrong, grapes in Newfoundland", which is different than freely jumping between them.
ocschwar 11y ago
"The energy companies denying anthropomorphic climate change have much larger budgets and a vested interest in convincing everyone everything is fine, there's no need to change anything, so they can continue on with their current business model." It's pretty telling that these companies have spent well over 100 million in recent years for propaganda, and a grand total of ONE grant of 200K for scientific research. And when that grant concluded global warming is real and anthropogenic, that was the end of industry funded research. Now it's nothing but propaganda.
- aetherson 11y ago
  Doesn't that kind of imply to you that energy companies or whoever have not systematically infiltrated science, as the author of this article says that green organizations have? I feel like this thread goes: Original author: "Green movements with deep pockets have infiltrated science!" Poster: "Yeah, but energy companies have even deeper pockets [so it's okay if people with obvious financial incentives to believe that climate change deserves drastic action are given gatekeeper positions in science.]" Another poster: "Yeah, and check it out! The deep-pocketed energy companies don't even get involved with science!" ...
  - ocschwar 11y ago
    It implies to me that nothing's infiltrated science except scientists. It shows to me that the fossil fuel lobby knows AGW is real, knows that if they hire any scientists to look at the issue, those scientists will once again confirm that AGW is real, and so they prefer to fund denialism. That's the thing: you can have debates and disagreements, but physical reality does take sides. [update] You're a citizen. You can read the scientific papers on AGW regardless of whether they're used by the IPCC for their own papers. Might I suggest you do that?
    - MCRed 11y ago
      What about the reports from the UN IPCC That misrepresented the claims of scientists named in the reports? (To the Scientists protests.) In fact, IPCC reports-- which are not science but political propaganda-- are the sum total of "science" that AGW proponents rely on when making their political claims (And their claim that "Science" agrees with them, which they think justifies calling anyone who disagrees with the hypothesis by the epithet of "denier")
j_baker 11y ago
I'll say one thing: I think that there really are a number of business groups with vested interests in skewing the science one way or the other. On one hand, you have the Koch brothers who want you to believe global warming is a non-issue and that everything will be fine so keep burning all the fossil fuels you want. On the other hand, green energy companies such as Solar City who have a vested interest in convincing everyone that the world will end unless you install their solar panels on your roof. I'm not certain I really agree with either end of the spectrum.
- Daishiman 11y ago
  The difference is that Solar City dudes are basing their claims on published, respectable research. Very likely, they're being too optimistic.
MCRed 11y ago
The government has a much larger budget and a vested interest in convincing everyone that things are not fine. Both the UN, which is seeking the ability to impose a global carbon tax-- the first step to being a world government-- and local governments such as the US Federal government which seeks the ability to have further control over the economy. Al Gore invested a great deal of money in a carbon trading exchange that would have made him billions if the US Government had passed the legislation he was trying to get passed during the height of the "Inconvenient Truth" era. The idea that only those with results that disagree with AGW have large budgets and vested interests is manifestly false. And silly. Edit: You can't have a discussion on hacker news of an intellectual nature because people use the down vote button to bury and silence those who disagree with their political dogma. As a result, Hacker News, day by day, becomes more of an echo chamber, and as a result will likely end up like slashdot. IS that what you want? Are you really so insecure that you cannot tolerate well made arguments that you disagree with?
- ocschwar 11y ago
  "The government" ? There are over 40 developed countries whose governments fund scientific research. Several of them have heads of state who would love to find evidence against AGW: Canada and Australia come to mind. Angela Merkel would love to find evidence that the coal mining way of life in East Germany isn't a problem. (But she knows not to fight against scientific evidence.) Our own government had a republican president not so long ago. Again, if there was any avenue of scientific research that could find evidence against AGW, there would be money to fund it, be it from governments or corporations. Deniers have spent over 100M on propaganda in recent years. That's a lot of money that could have gone towards research if there was any to be done. There was exactly one attempt to do that, with the grant given to Richard Muller at Berkeley. That blew up in the denier's faces, and they're never doing that again. [update] "When you resort to calling people who disagree with your hypothesis "deniers" then..." I am calling them deniers because they have ample funds with which to find evidence for their case, and they are refraining from doing so. [update] "Thanks for conceding that there are 40 governments putting money" I did not say "40 governments putting money into the other side." I said "40 governments funding science." And as I pointed out, the governments of Australia and Canada would love to find evidence against AGW. And yet government funded scientists in both countries continue to find evidence for it. Our own government under George W. Bush would have loved to find evidence against AGW. And yet our scientists in NASA, NOAA, and academia, were finding evidence for it the entire time.
zzalpha 11y ago
but what they haven't done is looked at whether the change will be net positive or net negative. That's actually quite rational. From a government policy perspective, what matters is the negatives, because it's the negatives that will require human action to cope. The most notable example, of course, is rising sea levels as a result of melting polar ice and general thermal expansion, which threatens billions of people who live in coastal areas. Whether or not northern Canada turns into a breadbasket doesn't help a Malaysian or Miami resident when the land their homes are built on becomes the new seafloor.
- MCRed 11y ago
  .... and now you see their motive. "Human Action" means Government Action which means power.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - zzalpha 11y ago
    Let's ignore the whole anthropogenic-or-not question. Are you saying you believe that global average temperatures aren't increasing? Or are you saying you believe they are, but we shouldn't do anything about it and just live with whatever consequences come our way? Fundamentally I just don't understand your position. If you genuinely believe global average temperatures aren't rising, well, there's not much to argue about. The evidence is in. Even the skeptics generally accept climate change is occurring, even if they don't agree about why. Holding a position that's objectively contrary to all current evidence is a position of faith rather than reason. If you accept that climate change is occurring, but that humans aren't the cause, and your argument is we should simply do nothing because OMG GOVERNMENT, well, again, there's not much to argue about. That's a fundamentally faith-based position as well, as it argues that the death and displacement of billions is better than governments empowered to offset those effects. I can't begin to even fathom that claim. It requires a distrust of government that I can't begin to comprehend... which has its irony, given it was the government that created the very medium upon which we're having this discussion. I suppose the last option is that you're just a troll, but I'll be generous and assume that's not the case and that rational discourse is, in fact, possible.
ZeroGravitas 11y ago
Worth noting that not only don't the 6 largest energy companies in Europe deny anthropogenic climate change, they're actively calling for a carbon tax to combat it. They claim that the oil and gas companies in the US would join them if the coal lobby wasn't so strong in the US.

Daishiman 11y ago

This article is a fucking damage to science.

coldcode 11y ago

The worse problem these days is knowing what articles or even research to believe, because it is so damn easy to write anything on the internet that recognizing BS or truth is becoming almost impossible. When the web appeared many of us thought that truth would be easier to see, but in reality it just meant that the noise was more easily generated.

merpnderp 11y ago
I just downloaded the RSS data and wrote an R script to find the trend. It's fun to play with the numbers yourself and get an idea of the only hard temperature numbers we have. The web allowed me to get the data in a matter of seconds. https://gist.github.com/merpnderp/91646625546cba7a1e70 https://gist.github.com/merpnderp/91646625546cba7a1e70
- MCRed 11y ago
  How do you get access to numbers that are not corrupted by the Mann "Algorithm" which applies "corrections"? (these corrections force growth in temperature results starting in the industrial era... which, it so happens to turn out, account for the warming.) If your data is really hard numbers (and from sources not subject to the heat island effect) I'd guess you'd find no warming. (Well other than solar cycles, etc.) Edit: Yes, yes, please down vote this comment talking about actual science stuff. Keep up the brigade. I'm not spamming, I'm just making points that make you unhappy because they disagree with your political dogma. I'm not sorry. You are being anti-intellectual. Your anti-intellectualism doesn't shame me. It should shame you.
  - merpnderp 11y ago
    The RSS data is just since 1979 and is based on radiation given off by different levels of the atmosphere. There have been some adjustments to the data based on changes in the satellites' heights, but this is mostly non-controversial. Download the data and run my script. It will be fun and "sciencey". http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurem... [EDIT] I don't have to the mod points to downvote anyone :)

mikeash 11y ago

This article follows a common tactic of focusing on nutcases on the extremist fringe of global warming "believers," and attempting to use false equivalence to make climate change deniers look reasonable by comparison. Of course there are nutcases on the "believers" side just as there are on the "deniers" side. The difference is that the nutcases on the "deniers" side are actually mainstream in the political world. On the "believers" side, the fringe is ignored or tolerated, while the mainstream talk is measured and based on fact. On the "deniers" side there's nothing but fringe.

MCRed 11y ago

First it was called "Global Warming", then when the planet cooled after the end of the local solar cycle they started calling it "Climate Change" -- because you can't deny the climate changes. And anyone who disagrees with AGW is labeled a "denier". I think that even AGW proponents know the science is not on their side-- they just don't care, because they want more government power over the economy. Demonizing a substance created by your very breath easily leads to pretty much the ultimate in tyrannical power.

jacobolus 11y ago
That’s a load of crap. International organizations call it “climate change” because the effects are much broader than increased temperature, but also include changes to air and ocean currents, precipitation levels, sea level rise, and a rise in average global temperatures isn’t uniform over the globe. The term “climate change” has been in use by scientists since the 50s, and the term “global warming” was introduced in Broeker’s 1975 paper “Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?” http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/files/2009/10/broeckerglobalwarming75.pdf http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/files/2009/10/broeckerglobalwar... Both terms have been in wide use since that time. No one has abandoned the term “global warming”, which is still an apt description of the fundamental change.
- MCRed 11y ago
  Sigh. Yeah, sure. You want to do an analysis of newspaper headlines over the past 30 years? You think they will agree with you? Cause I know they won't. Also, calling people denier is proof positive of my point. The down vote brigades are just icing on the cake. You guys don't care about science, you reject the scientific method completely, and you rely on propaganda, demonization and silencing your critics. If the science was on your side, why the need for such dishonesty?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - waterlesscloud 11y ago