re: What are your reasons for believing climate change is "a hoax"

quote:

---

What on fricking Earth does my question have to do with the "Scientific Method"?

---

You're right. It's not really the "Scientific Method". It's the "Scientific Process". There IS a difference.

But here's the answer you were fishing for. The days of Samuel Morton and his American Golgotha study are generally over in science. I hate to tell you but statistics are a mother. You can't get around math and statistics. Maybe the reason there isn't a lot of science supporting (And I HATE using this term, but I am almost forced to in this case) "climate deniers" is that there is scant evidence supporting those case. Most researchers today post their entire data sets so if you make an error, it's bound to be caught by those that are smarter and sharper than you are. (And I've found that there's always someone smarter than "you").

I know tons and tons of scientists. I work with them EVERY day. And I hate to break it to you, but 99+% of them don't really have a political agenda when it comes to their research. That's because ultimately their reputations are on the line. Looks at what happened to Fleischmann and Pons after their "cold fusion" experiment was proved to be a hoax. They both were basically run out of science. Look what happened to Wakefield after his MMR and Autism study was found to be fraudulent. This is why scientists generally don't fabricate data.

Now (and here's the part you were fishing for) none of this is to say that scientists don't have a political agenda AFTER their research is generated, but that's a totally different argument.

Let's just use the stock ticker

XOM used propaganda to convince people that climate change wasn't real. Now even XOM is on records as saying it is. Yet people still believe that it isn't real. Is XOM now in on the conspiracy too?

I’m not arguing on whether we should believe in climate change based on a ExxonMobil report. I’m simply stating that if you can’t come close to spelling a companies name, you shouldnt either

quote:

---

Oh please. I know the fricking scientific method. Given that you've already professed ignorance of the subject, perhaps you should sit this one out.

---

Nobody wants to tackle this question, because they know that the money trail doesn't look great.

quote:

---

Everything is a conspiracy.

---

Yep, even the Russians" bullshite

People believe what they want to believe. Any semblance of authority has been stripped of credibility

I think the human impact is exaggerated by people with a political agenda. Many of the researchers' funding comes from government, and certain politicians want a particular result from said research in order to push their agenda. So many scientists will comply in order to receive funding.

I do not disagree that we have a negative impact on certain climate patterns, and in some cases can cause short term natural disasters as the earth corrects and repairs itself. This is the price we accept in order to live comfortably in a developed world.

I do not think the doomsday scenarios are true, and even if something of that nature happens like say a new ice age it will largely be due to factors that humans do not control.

quote:

---

Obviously this is terrible and data like this should be completely discarded. And I have no problem with entities making these claims to be audited to make sure that falsified data is completely thrown out.

---

The problem is that many times the original data was discarded and cannot be recovered. Now there is no actual original historical data to be analyzed in this case. This is the real evidence that a hoax is happening - knowing and wanton destruction of the real data.

Funny how they call people who don't buy into the narrative "Climate Change Deniers". Makes me wonder why they aren't called "Climate Change Believers".

quote:

---

XOM used propaganda to convince people that climate change wasn't real. Now even XOM is on records as saying it is.

---

Have you considered that XOM changed its position based upon politics/image of company rather than pure science? Because I'm here to tell you, the truth doesn't matter. XOM will take the position that makes the most money for the company. The 'science' being true or not doesn't matter.

quote:

---

This is where you have it wrong. People are paid to study something. They aren't paid to come up with a conclusion. The conclusion is what it is.

---

That you are going to pretend that you think this is what I meant demonstrates your level of hackery.