You ask;
"You have total faith in an and think that if others don't believe they are stupid?"
That is where confusion sets in as such emotive words often send people off at a tangent.
I suggest alarmists are more inclined to trust probability and the potential risk/ reward scenario in relation to acting or not acting on climate change.
Alarmists are IMO more able to give a clearer picture regarding probability compared to denialists who are more inclined to say all this climate alarm is hot air, crap and scientists living the good life off the gravy train.
Which argument is more likely to be adopted by ;
a. People with a solid grasp of science?
b. People who are not keen on paying more tax to kick start green energy adoption?
c. People who believe man didn't land on the moon, the earth is flat and God created fossil fuels for us to use as we like and CO 2 helps plants grow faster?
d. People who own shares or significant interests in industry or services reliant on fossil fuels?
- Forums
- Science & Medicine
- A lesson in History of Climate alarmism
A lesson in History of Climate alarmism, page-124
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 417 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)