Hi koan; Re: "What is important is that according to 97% of qualified climatologists, human climate change is not only real bet very dangerous and we must mitigate it. That is all that is important. And as such we must study it with big money.";
(1) You have no real evidence that "according to 97% of qualified climatologists, human climate change is not only real bet very dangerous and we must mitigate it." If you do have such evidence, please link to the peer reviewed journal article that shows that this is true. On the contrary, the only papers I've seen that give this figure used extremely limited methods of defining the voters, their data was kept secret, and the authors were partisans. What you need is a vote on the subject run by a non-partisan organization that everyone trusts.
(2) And there's no logical reason to restrict the opinions to "qualified climatologists". In fact, the most biased people on the value of any subject are the people whose income depends on it being seen as vital. When the voting is less restricted, for example to people with science degrees, the percentage that agrees with "very dangerous and must mitigate it" becomes much smaller.
Hey, if this really is your "important" evidence for the importance of global warming, how come the global warming alarmists haven't organized a real vote on the subject? That would be a public vote where everyone knows exactly who is qualified to vote and where the subject to be voted on includes different options such as "adaptation" as opposed to "mitigation"?
No, the reason you don't see that sort of thing is that the alarmists know they'd lose the vote. If it were really that important, you'd have begged a non partisan group to run the election for you. But you didn't. And when I look at the lifestyles of the alarmists like Mann and Gore, I see carbon footprints that make the average American look like that of a savage living in the primitive untracked jungle.
-- Carl |
