Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Earth Science Politics

Scientists Study How Non-Scientists Deny Climate Change (theguardian.com) 680

A new research paper suggest climate change opponents are "simulating coherence by conspiracism". Slashdot reader Layzej says the paper "examines this behavior at the aggregate level, but gives many examples where contradictory ideas are held by the same individual, and sometimes are presented within a single publication." From the paper: Claims that the globe "is cooling" can coexist with claims that the "observed warming is natural" and that "the human influence does not matter because warming is good for us". Coherence between these mutually contradictory opinions can only be achieved at a highly abstract level, namely that "something must be wrong" with the scientific evidence in order to justify a political position against climate change mitigation...

In a nutshell, the opposition to greenhouse gas emission cuts is the unifying and coherent position underlying all manifestations of climate science denial... Climate science denial is therefore perhaps best understood as a rational activity that replaces a coherent body of science with an incoherent and conspiracist body of pseudo-science for political reasons and with considerable political coherence and effectiveness.

"I think that people who deny basic science will continue to do so, no matter how contradictory their arguments may be," says one of the paper's authors, who suggests that the media should be wary of self-contradicting positions.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Scientists Study How Non-Scientists Deny Climate Change

Comments Filter:
  • by NotInHere ( 3654617 ) on Sunday September 25, 2016 @03:41PM (#52958625)

    These scientists are wrong! Liars! They don't respect our religion!

    • by JustAnotherOldGuy ( 4145623 ) on Sunday September 25, 2016 @03:56PM (#52958697)

      These scientists are wrong! Liars! They don't respect our religion!

      That's basically it. If your personal magic sky-daddy says one thing 2,000 years ago and those tricky, unreliable scientists say something different, who ya gonna believe?

      I mean, a book written by ignorant, desert-dwelling sheep herders 20 centuries ago couldn't possibly be wrong about anything, could it? Never mind that these people knew nothing of science, biology, astronomy, meteorology, oceanography, chemistry, zoology, botany, astrophysics, climatology, cosmology, hydrodynamics, hygienics, immunology, magnetics, neurology, oceanography, palaeontology, or geology, and never mind that most of them had never been more than about 10 miles from the place they'd been born in their entire lives, they just couldn't be wrong about complex scientific stuff, could they? OF COURSE NOT!

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Sorry this may be feeding a troll, but this one makes too good of a point. How could such people know such things!!

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        I believe the Bible as much or more than some ivory tower elitist snob propellerheads, whose primary mission in life is to lie to us to continue their ride on the government funded gravy train. At least with a book written thousands of years ago, I know there is no ulterior motive other than to tell us how to live a good life and obtain entry to the next one. Most of the "climate scientists" I know are more interested in where their next grant might come from rather than saving their eternal souls, and ar
        • by Dunbal ( 464142 ) * on Sunday September 25, 2016 @04:50PM (#52958919)
          I give the bible as much credibility as I give Frank Herbert's Dune series. In fact, the latter is much better.
        • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 25, 2016 @04:50PM (#52958921)

          Agree that some scientists have hidden motives, but so had those who wrote the bible. The point of writing a religious book is to control people, and ride a gravy train of donations (and in some cases, church taxes) A side activity of comforting people and talking about "morale" lets them keep such control for a long time, as some people really believe the stuff.

        • by Sam36 ( 1065410 )
          Thank you for that comment. I was actually kind of inspired. I'll be quoting you next time I run across similar trolls.
        • by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Sunday September 25, 2016 @05:28PM (#52959097) Journal

          Why would you believe the Bible more than, say, Greek myth, Nordic paganism, or heck, an even older religion like Hinduism or Zoroastrianism?

          And who said the Bible doesn't have motives attached to it? The entire book of Leviticus is about a pack of religious laws whose major purpose appears to have been social control. Seriously, do you think a law banning having sexual intercourse with your menstruating wife has no motive?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        This is why we should read books written by the great sea pirates. They know all those things, and more. They could navigate human biospheres for months to distant lands, come back, and do it more than twice.

      • by tsa ( 15680 )

        Desert-dwelling sheep herders weren't ignorant! They knew all about herding and breeding sheep, what kinds of food they need etc. But they couldn't write, and therefore they couldn't have written the Bible.

      • riiiiight and since the Vatican is all in on climate change, I'm supposed to take solace that the SkyGod and Green Religion have joined forces? Really?
        • riiiiight and since the Vatican is all in on climate change, I'm supposed to take solace that the SkyGod and Green Religion have joined forces? Really?

          The pope may have finally realized that it's actually happening, but his followers? Not so much.

      • by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Sunday September 25, 2016 @05:25PM (#52959085) Journal

        Whilie the tactics of the pseudo-skeptics certainly have borrowed heavily from the Creationists (and the tobacco company-funded pseudoscientists), the intent isn't really to tap into belief that AGW is some sort of religious heresy. Rather, it taps into two streams; the tendencies of certain groups, particularly in conservative circles, to adopt a sort of kneejerk contrarianism to anything that requires a significant shift in the way society thinks, and in part of pure selfishness (i.e. I don't want to have to pay more for gas).

        Note that not just conservatives are guilty of contrarianism. You see similar views among antivaxxers, who are often liberal or left-leaning.

        For the pseudo-skeptics, having identified the audience they need to convince, it's simply a matter of tapping into the contrarianism via the classic path; associating the science with a "Liberal agenda". It probably hasn't helped that some of the chief advocates of AGW on the public stage have been liberals like Al Gore. This gives the pseudo-skeptics the target they need. When you couple that with a general Libertarian-style of anti-regulation, in which any attempt to price carbon will immediately lead to cries of government interference, well, you have a perfect mix; AGW is a Liberal lie whose sole purpose is to increase the power of the State. Finally throw in the pseudo-science itself; find a few like-minded scientists in related fields, get them to write articles in friendly papers, go on speaking tours and the like, and when they are inevitably critiqued, declare those critiques as attacks by the evil liberal scientific cabal.

        Again, this was all worked out a very long time ago when the Creationists began their own attacks on science. Tap into inherent contrariarnism in certain groups, attach nefarious motives (those evolutionists are trying to get rid of God), and throw in a few friendly scientists (Michael Behe, for instance, the intellectual forebearer of Frank Spencer), concoct some scientific sounding word salads, and voila, you have your Creationist attack on science.

        The AGW pseudo-skeptic community is also progressing towards the Creationists final tactic; accepting just enough of the science not to look utterly absurd. For Creationists, this was the creation of Intelligent Design, for AGW pseudo-skeptics it involves memes like "climate is always changing", or the newer "well yes, it is warming up, maybe we have something to do with it, maybe we don't, but we shouldn't do anything about it and instead should deal with the effects:.

      • Even worse is that the claims of "the Bible is the direct word of God" are using translations of translations of translations. It's like a centuries-long "whisper game". Then you also have to add in all the other, "non approved" books like The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Judas, Book of Jasher (which is still lost no matter what the CLDS might claim lol), Book of Shemaiah, and a huge list of texts.

        To me, there just isn't enough information left to be willing to pledge "my eternal soul" to, kill in the
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Most people who consider themselves to be morally upright will become amazingly lazy once any degree of actual sacrifice is warranted.

      For example, nobody wants to stand up and take action to hold their elected officials accountable. They all want someone else to do it for them.

      Same is true for climate change. They don't want to do anything costly or hard. So instead they engage in amazing mental gymnastics to justify that nothing needs doing, and that doing something might actually be harmful.

      It's how we

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 25, 2016 @03:45PM (#52958641)

    Science is not immune to politics. It's really that simple.

    • by Roger W Moore ( 538166 ) on Sunday September 25, 2016 @04:37PM (#52958851) Journal
      Not really it is simply people making dishonest arguments. The scientific evidence that the planet is warming is overwhelming the problem is that the proposed solution - reducing greenhouse gas emissions - carries with it a huge economic impact. Not surprisingly this means there are a large number of people who believe that the economic problems from reducing greenhouse gas emissions outweighs the problems of just warming the planet.

      However they believe that this argument is not strong enough to prevent everyone deciding to cut greenhouse gas emissions so, although they really believe the science, their only option to prevent the economic problems they are worried about is to attack the science and try to pretend that it is wrong. So really this is simply a dishonest argument made be people who are so afraid of the impact of curbing greenhouse gases that they attack the arguments for this in the only way that has any chance of success even though they don't really believe the argument they are making themselves

      When the chips are down so to speak it is amazing how overwhelmingly people will back science. One of the best examples of this which is often pointed out is despite all the arguments in US schools about whether to teach evolution vs. creationism (or whatever fancy name is the flavour of the day) everytime there is a concern about a new disease evolving an spreading e.g. SARS, bird flu, swine flu etc. no politician stands up and says that we should do nothing because viruses can't evolve. So when lives are on the line people really do believe in science to help and guide them but if they do not see an immediate threat to their well being then they'll happily undermine and ignore it to keep up their own standard of living.
    • by hey! ( 33014 )

      Sure, but that's true of anything that involves more than once person. So like a lot of know-nothings, you've mistaken "simple in principle" with "simple in consequences".

    • by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Sunday September 25, 2016 @05:40PM (#52959139) Journal

      Which is why science has built-in processes to deal with bias. It isn't perfect, and it can take time, but eventually fraud or bad science is caught.

      And really, at this point, with so many streams of evidence for AGW, to deny that human-caused CO2 emissions are having a significant impact on global climate really is no different than denying that all life evolved from some common ancestor, or that eating high amounts of refined sugar is hazardous to your health, or that smoking cigarettes leads to cancer and lung disorders.

  • Replicated Studies (Score:2, Insightful)

    by BeemanIT ( 4023223 )
    Didn't they recently say that many scientific papers/studies cannot be replicated? I've also heard that many of the global warming studies don't include the solar cycles the sun goes through as well.
    • by AC-x ( 735297 ) on Sunday September 25, 2016 @04:36PM (#52958845)

      I've also heard that many of the global warming studies don't include the solar cycles the sun goes through as well.

      You mean these cycles? [cabrillo.edu]

    • by hey! ( 33014 )

      Interestingly, the results in many of those studies have not been replicable.

    • by OzPeter ( 195038 )

      Didn't they recently say that many scientific papers/studies cannot be replicated? I've also heard that many of the global warming studies don't include the solar cycles the sun goes through as well.

      I also heard that the reason Trump won't release his taxes is because it will reveal his donations to NAMBLA.

      It's amazing what you can hear if you don't care about truth or nominating the source of where you heard it,

  • by grasshoppa ( 657393 ) <skennedy AT tpno-co DOT org> on Sunday September 25, 2016 @03:53PM (#52958685) Homepage

    The problem with climate science is that it's so difficult. The average person the street has little hope of understanding all the data and how it interacts. They can never, therefore, have confidence in the results being reported to them. I'm largely in the same boat, btw; despite on and off studying over the past several years, I still don't really have a grasp on how all the data ties together and consequently I don't have a high degree of confidence in the reported conclusions of others.

    Given this, attacking on the basis of "CLIMATE CHANGE" is the absolutely worst approach. The ignorance of your target audience will prompt them to respond contrary to your goals. Instead focus should be placed on the specifics; clean air emissions, water discharge standards, ect... Why? Because these are things people can understand, and they are immediately relevant to them. I don't want to live next to a factory dumping shit into the air/water, and neither does anyone else. That should be how climate change is addressed; not on the large scale, but rather the personalized one.

    • "clean air emissions, water discharge standards, ect... Why? Because these are things people can understand, and they are immediately relevant to them. I don't want to live next to a factory dumping shit into the air/water," Nobody does. You are correct. But that is not climate change. Erroneously conflating the two is part of the problem.
      • If we pollute the land and water, not just to the point of being unpleasant, but actually to the point of being unable to support plant life or causing ecosystem collapse, then that is climate change.

    • by Kohath ( 38547 )

      On a personalized scale, people see their energy bills increasing and their freedom diminishing, but they don't personally see harmful weather changes and they haven't personally had to deal with water encroaching on their beach house.

    • I've seen articles psychologizing both sides(actually there are more sides), and the articles don't have to be wrong in order to be counterproductive. When you're reducing your opponent in the debate as being the mere product of psychological and social drivers, you're effectively dismissing part of the debate.
      So you get polarization that loses sight of the main issues. So the public debate becomes a mass of lousy thinking where confirmation bias dominates everything.
      At the same time the possibility to be i

  • by Hercules Peanut ( 540188 ) on Sunday September 25, 2016 @03:55PM (#52958689)
    Bad Predictions:

    Claim from the late 20th to early 21st century: Global Warming means that the planet it getting hotter. Temperatures will rise.
    Life: Record lows in winter
    Reaction: Change the term from Global Warming to Climate Change.

    Claim from 2007 post multiple hurricanes: Global warming will only make hurricanes more frequent and more powerful.
    Life: They haven't, they aren't.
    Reaction:Just wait

    Claim: Global warming will cause droughts.
    Life: Flooding and heavy rains.
    Global Warming Experts Reaction: Dry places will get drier, wet places will get wetter.

    Claim: People who deny global warming should be discredited as scientists.
    Life: Debate, discussion, new data and learning happen. Global Warming/Climate change has had its share of bad science and reckless predictions on both sides of the fence and it makes it easy for people to believe what they want OR what they SEE OR simply become resistant to the concept believing the issue to be more political than scientific.
    Slashdot Reaction to this post: Predictable
    • by fred6666 ( 4718031 ) on Sunday September 25, 2016 @04:09PM (#52958745)

      Bad Predictions: Claim from the late 20th to early 21st century: Global Warming means that the planet it getting hotter. Temperatures will rise. Life: Record lows in winter Reaction: Change the term from Global Warming to Climate Change.

      Actually this prediction was right, the hottest years on record are all recent years. Temperatures did rise, on average. That doesn't mean that there isn't a town where it is colder in one month of the winter.

    • by Stormy Dragon ( 800799 ) on Sunday September 25, 2016 @04:13PM (#52958763) Homepage

      Life: Record lows in winter

      e.g. If the three months of winter on average way above normal, but I can find one day over the three month period that was unusually cold, I am going to pretend the entire winter was record cold.

      Life: They haven't, they aren't.

      e.g. Only hurricanes that make land fall in the continental US count because they're the only ones I hear about on the news

      Life: Flooding and heavy rains.

      e.g. Ignore the widespread droughts, it's always raining somewhere.

      • by hey! ( 33014 ) on Sunday September 25, 2016 @07:11PM (#52959493) Homepage Journal

        Life: Record lows in winter

        e.g. If the three months of winter on average way above normal, but I can find one day over the three month period that was unusually cold, I am going to pretend the entire winter was record cold.

        Actually, it's more like "if it's cold outside my door, then the whole world must be cooler than normal".

        It's worth noting that the "greenhouse effect" is much less pronounced in the winter than the summer, because in the winter there's less energy to be trapped. In fact in the polar regions there's practically none. So expect winters to still be cold, in fact you may get record cold as weather patterns are disrupted (e.g., 2014) by latitude gradients in energy trapped.

        In fact models have predicted a pattern of both extreme highs and lows for twentyyears now. It's only when you integrate over the entire surface of the globe that you see "global warming". Consider this quote from a 1995 New York Times article [nytimes.com]:

        A four-degree warming, some scientists say, could cause ice at the poles to melt, resulting in rising sea levels. It would also shift climatic zones and make floods, droughts, storms and cold and heat waves more extreme, violent and frequent

        This idea that global warming is disproved by local cold snaps is just a straw man argument.

    • Life: Record lows in winter

      There have been no "record lows in winter" for climate. Are you talking about local weather? I'm sure we could get you some remedial understanding of "weather vs climate" if you feel you need it.

      Until you demonstrate you understand the distinction, your comments are not going to carry the impact you want.

    • by drolli ( 522659 )

      While as a scientist i know that climate change will be observable and is clearly cause by humans, I agree with your point.

      In the media there is a representation of climate science which very often exaggerates, adds own interpretations and creates unjustified causal relations between observation and hypothesis.

      I for my part would always like to consider the "null hypothesis" which means that if there is a big storm (or two in a row) i should ask how unlikely this would have been to observe it without climat

    • 'Climate change' was a term coined by a Republican to make 'Global Warming' seem less scary.

      'Climate change' is a natural consequence of 'global warming', and many scientists still refer to it as such because that's the accurate thing to say.

      "The second premise is also wrong, as demonstrated by perhaps the only individual to actually advocate changing the term from 'spherical warming' to 'climate change', Republican political strategist Frank Luntz in a controversial memo advising conservative politicians o

  • At least that's what is they say here [rochdaleherald.co.uk].
  • Common for Cranks (Score:5, Informative)

    by dcollins ( 135727 ) on Sunday September 25, 2016 @03:58PM (#52958705) Homepage

    Note that holding contradictory beliefs is fairly common of conspiracy theorists (link [wikipedia.org]):

    Another study titled Dead and Alive: Beliefs in Contradictory Conspiracy Theories managed to show that, not only will cranks be attracted to and believe in numerous conspiracy theories all at once, but will continue to do so even if the theories in question are completely and utterly incompatible with one another. For instance, the study showed that: "... the more participants believed that Princess Diana faked her own death, the more they believed that she was murdered [and that] ... the more participants believed that Osama Bin Laden was already dead when U.S. special forces raided his compound in Pakistan, the more they believed he is still alive," and that "Hierarchical regression models showed that mutually incompatible conspiracy theories are positively associated because both are associated with the view that the authorities are engaged in a cover-up".

    Citation: Wood, Michael J., Karen M. Douglas, and Robbie M. Sutton. "Dead and alive beliefs in contradictory conspiracy theories." Social Psychological and Personality Science 3.6 (2012): 767-773.

  • by Stormy Dragon ( 800799 ) on Sunday September 25, 2016 @04:03PM (#52958727) Homepage

    Science news is largely presented by reporters with journalism educations who don't have any background in the science they're covering and as a result don't really understand the nature of what it is they're covering.

    As a result, when they report an issue like climate change, they're completely unqualified to explain the actual science and instead of covering the work that scientists do, they cover the scientists instead. Instead of explaining the research that led Dr. Jones to conclude climate is changing, we get an appeal to authority.

    So the reason non-scientists deny climate change is that the argument for climate change is largely being presented to them via non-scientific arguments.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      On the same note (unqualified reporters trying to explain basic scientific issues) is the "EQUAL REPORTING" ethos that has pervaded the news media. EVEN IF the evidence is overwhelmingly in the Global Warning arena, the "Equal Reporting" issue SEEMS to show that half - or thereabouts - of the scientific community does NOT believe the evidence supporting Global Warming - - - when the actual numbers approach 95%(+) FOR, and 5% (or so) AGAINST. The bigger the lie, the easier it is for the masses to believe.
    • by hey! ( 33014 )

      Science news is largely presented by reporters with journalism educations who don't have any background in the science they're coverin

      The exception being, of course Science News [sciencenews.org], which I've subscribed to for over 30 years.

  • hal (Score:3, Informative)

    by prof_robinson ( 2632705 ) on Sunday September 25, 2016 @04:13PM (#52958769)
    Physicist Hal Lewis; Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara: "It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford's book organizes the facts very well.) I don't believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist." http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/n... [telegraph.co.uk]
    • Re:hal (Score:4, Informative)

      by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Sunday September 25, 2016 @05:02PM (#52958971) Journal

      Before Professor Lewis became senile, he held a different opinion:

      in his 1990 book Technological Risk, Lewis wrote that "all models agree that the net effect" of increasing greenhouse gases "will be a general and global warming of the earth; they only disagree about how much. None suggest that it will be a minor effect, to be ignored while we go about our business." Reducing the effects, including significant sea level rise, would "require global cooperation and sacrifice now, to avert something far in the future, and a conjectural something at that. There is no evidence in human history that is in the cards, but one can always hope."[10]

      Hal Lewis is 93 years old. He retired 25 years ago.

      And Montford is a fiction writer and blogger whose crackpot conspiracy theories have been well and truly debunked.

    • Re:hal (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Sunday September 25, 2016 @05:06PM (#52958985)

      Tell us more about the "(literally) trillions of dollars driving" the GW scam.

    • Re: hal (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Oh, a *physicist* is telling us the climatologists are making it all up. Not based on data, of course, merely on the phrasing of some leaked emails (never mind that those "climategate" scientists were thoroughly cleared by *eight* independent investigations).

      And again the old accusation of vast amounts of money tempting the scientists (though all the scientists ever see is a moderate salary), while desperately ignoring the *far* vaster sums thrown around by fossil fuel industries, who have already been caug

  • Crying Wolf (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Alot of the skepticism stems from the doomsday-esque presentation of the scientists. I lost count of all the embearded professors who predicted the world would be under water by now, or one big desert, etc. These people are extremists so of course, rational people tune this stuff out.

    If they would present their case in a more level-headed manner I think most people would be receptive to what they have to say.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You've lost count? That's funny because I've never heard a single climate scientist say the world's continents would be entirely submerged by 2016. Can you cite one example of that? Or of any climate scientist saying desertification would occur over a majority of the world by 2016? If that's what you think you heard, then no wonder those were particularly easy strawman to tear down.
  • by Dunbal ( 464142 ) * on Sunday September 25, 2016 @04:47PM (#52958905)

    Are the "scientists" conducting these "studies" psychologists or behavioral scientists? Because as far as I know, those are the only "scientists" who study why people would react one way or another to a situation. I mean marketing people do too, but that's hardly science. The cited article is unclear although what is clear, apart from the APA format of citation, is that it does not follow the standard format of SCIENTIFIC articles. Usually an article by SCIENTISTS doesn't go "1. Introduction 2. Conclusion". There's a whole lot missing on things like materials and methodology, discussion, etc.

    So if you want an additional tip as to why people (including scientists, for I am one) reject climate change "science" - here's a big hint: follow the scientific method. Note that I am not even discussing the actual data evidence for or against climate change. I am discussing the lack of credibility of people who call themselves "scientists" but clearly are not. The scientific method and the way scientific articles are laid out is not new and does not need to be reinvented.

    Perhaps the confusion arises because social sciences people are actually starting to believe that they are "scientists" because they took Poli Sci.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 25, 2016 @05:06PM (#52958981)

    Lewandowsky and Cook - back on track with another paper full of lies and bullshit.
    Remember the '97%' lie? Where 72 out of 12,000 papers supported his position, 1 supported the opposition's most extreme position, so he eliminated the rest and called it "science"? The paper where he had his forum members performing analysis? The paper where dozens of other scientists pointed out he had failed to understand their papers? That one?
    Or the 'Moon Landing Hoax' hoax of a paper? Where these two allowed their forum members to submit answers to their online survey of opposition beliefs? Where they claimed to have included hundreds of skeptics and skeptic websites, all of whom reported they had never participated?
    Oh! What about the 'Recursive Fury' paper, where these two 'analyzed' responses from skeptics - most of which they made up themselves?

    After they've had multiple papers withdrawn for ethical, legal, and methodology concerns, you'd think they'd have learned to stop publishing this type of BS, but here they are at it again.
    This paper uses careful selected objections to modern climate science (such as, your model don't produce real world data) and then says that because the objector has not proposed an 100% accurate alternate model, the objector is insane.

    No, that is actually what the paper claims. That skeptics are not sane, or rational, or capable of coherent thought. All because some of them admit they don't know what the correct answer is, when they point out that someone else's answer is wrong.

  • Much of what was in "documentaries" like Inconvenient Truth and Gaslands was obvious BS. And we hear claims that Earth will be a lifeless cinder within a couple of generations even though CO2 levels have been much higher in the past.

    Most of the denials that the climate is warming goes against well documented measurements.

    The truth is somewhere in between. The best approach to minimizing the problem won't involve wealth transfer to poor nations. But neither side is going to budge.

  • Usually politicians ignore most of what science says and they go their merry way making laws regardless of the outcome. But now we have politicians wholeheartedly embracing what science is saying about climate change.

    I tend to trust scientists a whole lot more than I trust politicians. Who am I to believe when they agree with each other? I believe politicians are seeing the climate change issue as an opportunity to grab more power over people. And the way politicians are heading with their solution to clima
  • Small wonder.
    Half of the population have an IQ under 100, who would have thought?

  • This is a problem for all the breeders of the world. I'm not having kids, so go ahead and deny global warming (real or not) all you want. It'll be your spawn that fights for resources, not me or mine. I'll start caring when immortality is achieved :)

I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning. -- Plato