Discussion about this post

User's avatar
S Snell's avatar

You are repeating a very tired talking point that happens not to be true. The consensus you describe is a political one, not scientific. And don't quote that "97 percent," figure either. That figure is a fabrication created by partisans and repeated by a credulous media. It has been completely, irreversibly debunked. Don't take my word for it. Look it up. You may choose from many sources. Many, many highly credentialed people, far brighter than you or me, do not subscribe to global warming alarmism.

Furthermore, science does not work by consensus. If it did we would still believe in an Earth-centered Universe, and would accept phrenology as a proper diagnostic tool.

Climate is monstrously complex, loaded with uncertainties, and very incompletely understood. Thousands of interlinked, highly dynamic variables contribute to the making of this thing we call climate. Does it not strike you as a tad simplistic to assign so much weight to just one of those variables, one arguably of only minor overall importance?

Habitually using terms like "moron" and "idiot" to describe your ideological opponents says more about you than it does about them. Such behavior reveals you to be an uncivil, judgemental, and intolerant, person, not to mention a sloppy and lazy thinker.

Expand full comment
JohnW's avatar

Actually if you follow the logic of flat earth's, it's not a problem. This ginormous bit of ice will simply float to the edge of the earth and fall off. Presto, no sea level rising! No problem!

Expand full comment
331 more comments...

No posts