Hi koan; Re: "What is important is thataccording 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.
It is common knowledge. I will not take the time to research what you should have already done.
Ask any top PHD research climatologist. And there have been hundreds of peer reviewed studies that almost all agree on AGW. Find them yourself. You don't want to find them as it would upset your dogmatic vision of the world.
(2) And there's no logical reason to restrict the opinions to "qualified climatologists".
Of course there is. How many people understand string theory, or could verify the Higgs boson or gravity waves. Not many. You think it is simple because your world is simple and you do not understand complexity. You think you know as much as the scientists which shows you understand nothing about this problem.
<In fact, the most biased people on the value of any subject are the people whose income depends on it being seen as vital.>>
Not scientist's. You know nothing. The governor of Oklahoma or Kansas recently commissiomed the state scientists to investigate global warming but only as a cyclical event and as that was not scientific they refused.
And their jobs depended on it.
What you say is nonsense. if you really believe it, you are living in a fantasy world!
<<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.>>
Sure they are ignorant!
<<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.>>
You are willingly to live in a fantasy world. What a shame. |
