The more I read about this game. The more i go OH OH..8(

There are tbise that disagree they are just non vocal because they get shouted down. There are more of those that dont beleive we cause it than those that do.

If you dont consider scientific study findings as evidence or factual idk what does

 

Climate by it's very definition means change. It's a little redundant to say climate change.

 

I wouldn't say most media is conservative owned and controlled.

ABC, CBS, NBC/Comcast/Universal, Viacom, Time Warner, HBO, etc. are all quite public in their partisan ownership and affiliation.

Disney has been a strong proponent of gay rights for at least the past two decades and I've seen no indication they're particularly conservative.

Climate change is partisan, as is the scientific support for or against it. Not every scientist on the planet insists we know that man is responsible for climate change, or that carbon is the villain. If you look at historic trends from ice core samples over the past 400,000 years, when carbon levels rose, temperatures proceeded to go down. When carbon levels dropped, temperatures rose. Other scientists have noted that historically warming cycles have followed.



Those that insist they know without a doubt that carbon alone is causing warming and doing so by ignoring all historical data.

The Climatic Research Unit is the primary source of projections we have now that are alarming people. They insist man made carbon is leading us to apocalyptic situations. They predicted record hurricane seasons year after year because of rising carbon levels (and were wrong), even though we have no evidence carbon is linked to hurricanes. Their models are proprietary. They don't release their raw data, nor the methods they use to crunch their numbers. No one is allowed to try and reproduce their forecast models or analyze them. We must merely trust what they are telling us. They famously had leaked emails where they discussed internally how to massage data to mask how temperatures hadn't risen in a decade to make it look like they had.

Every major scientific organization did rush to defend the CRU and insist there was no misconduct in asking how to fake numbers to push political agenda.

It find it entirely possible that man is affecting the climate, but I do fear the partisan control over science and the need to sell alarmism to generate funding (as well as swing voting) is suspect.

The moment Al Gore released his film, it was tore apart and destroyed by the scientific community as being unfounded, alarmist and incorrect in most of its assessments. We do have a scientific consensus that global warming is occurring. We don't have a universal consensus that man is causing it, nor that carbon is causing it. The National Academy of Sciences has directly said they're unsure if man/carbon is causing warming, and we ignore them and claim they say otherwise. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/24/opinion/24easterbrook.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&

There have been voices in the community ignored, such as Greg Easterbrook's 1995 book that suggested environmentalism is a good movement, but the alarmism is misplaced. He found most data on greenhouse gasses were misrepresented to sell alarmism in much the same way we were told the planet would burn due to massive and irreparable damage to the ozone layer. In reality, the ozone layer hole wasn't as bad as it was sold, and it is closing faster than expected.

Bjørn Lomborg is saying the same thing, that we're ignoring any scientist that dares ask questions, act skeptical or cast doubt on the doom and gloom we're selling.

We absolutely should be responsible with the Earth. We should try to curb pollution. But if we evangelize and repeat bad science for partisan reasons, then we may overlook something even more important. What if carbon isn't the villain, but other greenhouse gasses are?

 

Wow, that was an EPIC departure from topic.

Aaaaand...locked.