And what's wrong with that? What would you rather have them do?
You asked why LOP thought Cook excluded papers that did not express a position, it was because that is what the paper stated!
I find climate change fascinating. It is a topic of endless discussion.
The last two points are not expressed in the peer reviewed scientific literature, or even in Cook's paper."The current scientific consensus is that:
- Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s.[a]
- Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary cause.
- Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects.
- People and nations can act individually and collectively to slow the pace of global warming, while also preparing for unavoidable climate change and its consequences."
Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
He describes the consensus position as "Humans are causing global warming"
We have a system that is favoring the wealthy and not the working class, a wealthy ruling elite further enriching themselves on our backs and getting the government to help them do it. Special deals with corrupt officials, laws that favor big business and restrict competition. In America, some of the worst working conditions among any first world nations. The American working class has some of the hardest working people on the entire planet and they're barely treading water.
Any particular reason why you would think the changes proposed to to fix AGW would improve the position of the working class?
Yes, and they all have their flaws. I have pointed many out before. I get rather tired of people posting the same horse pucky over and over, when they deny what is proven the first time.
That's a whole different thing yet.
Recognize that you don't know what the majority thinks, instead of going all D-K effect on the reporting..
Wikipedia."The current scientific consensus is that:
- Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s.[a]
- Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary cause.
- Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects.
- People and nations can act individually and collectively to slow the pace of global warming, while also preparing for unavoidable climate change and its consequences."
Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia
In my opinion, the worse harm we have on the earth has to do with the physical particulate pollution.
You debunk their narrative, and then they'd post some hyper-zoomed picture of a lug nut and start yelling about how that's from a Cessna, not a jet. It was madness.
Many proposals exist and many of them would improve the position of the working class, yes.
Entertaining BS contrarian views just gives them legitimacy.
Climate scientist tells Joe Rogan he refuses to debate dissenters on climate change
Climate scientist tells Joe Rogan he won't debate scientists who disagree with him on the science of climate change.www.foxnews.com
I dont listen to Rogan, but this article brings up a very good point: there are indeed a lot of scientists who disagree with the current climate alarmist narrative, and these same alarmists refuse to debate them.
Why? It's clear they want to shut down contrarian viewpoints, while insisting the science is "settled."
Well there's only one problem: science is never "settled." Science relies on new studies and findings. It's clear the alarmists are deliberately censoring those who disagree with them, even though there's plenty of studies that contradict that climate change is man-made.
Climate scientist tells Joe Rogan he refuses to debate dissenters on climate change
Climate scientist tells Joe Rogan he won't debate scientists who disagree with him on the science of climate change.
I dont listen to Rogan, but this article brings up a very good point: there are indeed a lot of scientists who disagree with the current climate alarmist narrative, and these same alarmists refuse to debate them.
Why? It's clear they want to shut down contrarian viewpoints, while insisting the science is "settled."
Well there's only one problem: science is never "settled." Science relies on new studies and findings. It's clear the alarmists are deliberately censoring those who disagree with them, even though there's plenty of studies that contradict that climate change is man-made.
Why would you think that, if you have already stated.
Why would you think the people in control of the system that favors the wealthy would write rules that favor the working class?
Nope it is 97%. Worldwide. Not just in the US.
What is it that they agree with?
This is the fundamental claim of the alarmist and why their charts and graphs all start during that era. You do know that is the depth of the LIA don’t you? Or do you? Of course it’s warmed since the LIA ended and thank god it did. That was a tough period for mankind.