Comment 126413

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted April 25, 2019 at 13:18:34 in reply to Comment 126412

That's not how science works. There's this thing called "peer review" in which scientists review papers submitted by other scientists to make sure the science is correct. It's not a perfect system but it's the best thing humans have ever come up with to systematically weed out bad ideas. This is aided by the competitive, antagonistic scientific culture in which the best way to get recognition and respect is to disprove a prevailing theory. If there was an empirical case against the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, scientists would be falling over themselves to make it.

There have been a very small number of papers published that have argued against the consensus that humans releasing huge quantities of known greenhouse gases into the atmosphere are causing a greenhouse effect. A recent meta-analysis of those papers found that they all shared a common set of glaring methodological errors that invalidated their results.

If you're actually concerned about the influence of money in the climate debate, look at the billions of dollars that oil companies have poured into sowing fear, uncertainty and doubt about the science. The oil companies' own internal research warned about global warming back in the 1970s, but they decided to suppress their own research and spend money funding lobbying and astroturf groups and anti-climate politicians and political parties that have helped prevent meaningful action from taking place.

Comment edited by administrator Ryan on 2019-04-25 13:18:59

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds