Hari Seldon is a great character.... If this guy is truly achieving his goals, we wouldn't know it. That's part of psychohistory.
An academic who promised several years ago to use a new form of mass hypnosis to get the public motivated to fight climate change claims that he's done it. In fact the claim is bogus: it is itself part of his attempt to carry out his plan of manipulating public opinion. The academicis, as regular readers of these pages will …
"psychohistory", a set of methods which could be used to manipulate the behaviour of large populations without their knowledge
LOLNO!! "psychohistory" was not about "manipulating populations" at all. It was about predicting what history has in store given the present political "state of things".
This is of course fanciful to the utmost as one cannot even predict the weather pattern one week out, and, as anyone how has glanced at von Mises realizes, history or economics are not physical system allowing scientific predictions, let alone tests. So stuff that. But this is Sci-Fi, so why not.
Now, if your psychohistory was working, you could position yourself NOW so that natural development of events lead to a preferred outcome in THE FUTURE. Thus, setting up a gaggle of archivists at the edge of the Galaxy would lead to new Galactic Empire in a few thousand years with high probability.
This probability being not 100%, it turns out that one has to finagle things behind the scenes using the "Second Foundation". In modern parlance, hack. Sadly, this is underwhelmingly done using another magic device, telepathy.
If suspension of disbelief is used, one could consider that psychistory sees history as a cellular automaton. One can then do a few billion runs of "history in the box" and select an outcome advantageous to oneself, then change a couple of cells at the NOW...
IIRC Sheldon could do the predictions using a slide ruler. Talk about "underspecified boundary conditions" doesn't even being to describe this kind of Mathematical Magic.
Actually it was. Yes, the first part was predicting what would happen. But the second part was about resetting the foundations of society by manipulating it. As eventually revealed, the First Foundation is about the hard sciences while the Second Foundation is about the soft sciences, that is, exactly the sort of thing Professor Fruitcake is involved in.
Yes it was all very fanciful in Asimov's writings. But you should still get it correct.
He's not a scientist, he's not a boffin and he's not a psychohistorian as much as he may want to be one or all of them.
Generally I disagree when I read statements and comments about 'scientists' at the government trough but this one is definitely trying to get his undeserved snout in the trough.
The prof's bullshit might be a factor in producing greenhouse gasses though.
Asking the public their views on climate change is fairly pointless. A better way to gauge the importance of an issue would be to ask actually scientists (you know, the people who have an in depth knowledge on these matters) who are screaming from the rooftops.
Unfortunately (and ironically), their voices are being deliberately ignored, thanks in part to the efforts of the fossil fuel and associated industries, who really do use underhand tactics in order to influence policymakers and the media, who are far more important than the public.
> Asking the public their views on climate change is fairly pointless.
Actually, this is one of the most important aspects of the whole debate.
The climate debate, whether or not you think climate change is preponderantly man-made, should be focussed on what we the public want to do about. The current political opinion on this issue is clouded by partisanship and political oneupmanship.
It's about time the populous was asked what they are willing to do if the climate changes.
Mostly it seems rather one-sided in terms of cutting emissions, raising taxes and other pointless agendas.
Has anyone considered that we might be happy to just move our houses from the coast?
The possibilities are not nearly as narrow as the politicians and climatologists like to paint it.
>> Asking the public their views on climate change is fairly pointless.
> Actually, this is one of the most important aspects of the whole debate.
No, because it's like asking people what to do about benefit fraud when they've been been repeatedly primed with the "scrounger narrative" by millionaire politicians who want to divert attention away from the *billions* of pounds of lost tax revenue that their rich mates have dodged.
Your average Joe and Josephine Public have little idea about the arguments, potential causes and suggested solutions, so asking them is pointless and counter-productive.
> Your average Joe and Josephine Public have little idea about the arguments, potential causes and suggested solutions, so asking them is pointless and counter-productive.
I would agree that the staggering lack of information or public discourse is a big problem.
That people remain ignorant and disconnected from public discourse is the main reason that our political masters manage to get away with so much of their bullshit.
That so many people are so ignorant is the real problem and there is little incentive to change this.
climate change is a vague concept for the public as a whole that don't realise that the science has being going on since the 70's - good, bad or badly done, its there. Most people won't believe it until it directly affects them: modern distractions aside, our little mammalian brains need a jolt to engage thinking beyond the meat puppet level.
You have to remember that people form their opinions on the basis of information received, and that usually means from the mainstream media.
The dolts in the mainstream media have swallowed the baseless claims from the IPCC and UNFCC hook, line and sinker, and now they think they'd lose face if they changed their minds. The trick is to go quiet on the subject for a few months and then start to have their journalists question everything said by both the warmists and the sceptics. Over time it will be seen that sceptics have far more data on their side than the alarmists.
So you are saying that Democracy "is pointless and counter-productive" because the average Joe isn't as bright as you think you are? Maybe, but it is the best substitute for a Dictatorship we've developed so far. When you have something better, let me know.
As for benefit fraud, I know people owning millions of dollars worth of rental property, living in a mansion, who through the magic of negative gearing qualify for every welfare payout in the book. Rich people don't pay income taxes, so we should reduce income tax rates on the rest of us and increase GST/VAT: it is the only tax rich people cannot avoid.
In the meantime, if 70% of the voters think Global Warming isn't happening, or isn't important if it is, then they have more intelligence than you give them credit for.
Oh dear, here we go back around the Mulberry Bush with the same old same old...
However I prefer to avoid the whole silly, childish, sneering arguments entirely, so please let me explain my position, which I've stated in these Forums before:
I don't know whether we're causing Global Warming or not. What I *DO* know is that we are, as a planetary civilisation, using more and more energy and expanding that usage at a rate which will become unsustainable at some point in the future.
So what we *need* to do is to find better ways of using that energy which, to save the expected straw-man responses, doesn't have to involve everyone wearing thicker sweaters or living in yurts or being forced to walk or cycle everywhere etc etc, but can be done by building more efficient vehicles, putting more insulation into buildings and finding better ways to manufacture goods etc to mention just a few examples.
Once we start doing that, we will, also, incredibly, be producing fewer greenhouse gasses and so on, which means that we win either way.
Now, do you want to keep on with the "Tis!" "Tisn't!" "Tis so!" arguments, or actually do something about the problem?
"So what we *need* to do is to "
No, it isn't. Reducing our consumption will only work so far, and at enourmous cost to our poor. Every year you read about how poor citizens in the UK and Europe are freezing to death in their homes because they can't afford to heat them.
A much better approach would be to extend our use of nuclear fission and develop new sources, such as fusion and satelite-solar that will increase our energy supply at an affordable rate.
"or actually do something about the problem?"
This is a big one. What, exactly, is the problem? Is it global warming, because I can show you graphs that show the planet hasn't warmed in 18 years. From real data, not that "homogenised" fudge they spout constantly in the media. Global warming hasn't been a problem for so long that the term had to be replaced with "climate change" - a good one, that because that's exactly what climates do - change.
Or is the problem more closely related to a political/religious argument to force us down a particularly hard green path that would see tens of millions die from cold because they couldn't heat their homes?
Brilliant! You've gone straight from "we should use energy more efficiently" to "you're going to make the poor freeze to death" what a fantastic Straw Man!!
How about, instead, we ensure that all houses are properly insulated, so the heat that the poor (and everyone else) uses is kept *in* the house instead of leaking out through the walls, roofs etc? There are already schemes which will give discounted cavity wall and loft insulation, but they should be free for the least well off. That would let them both stay warm and save money *and* use less energy!
And whilst I'm sympathetic to a lot of the politicies of the Greens, I don't agree with their idea of getting rid of nuclear fission plants, however I *do* think we need to put a lot more money and effort into renewables etc until we achieve the long-term aim of getting fusion to work, but that is still a long way down the line.
> This is a big one. What, exactly, is the problem? Is it global warming?
No, it is, as I said at the start of my post, that we are using more and more energy and that rate of increase cannot keep on going because we will hit a limit at some point which is not sustainable.
So we need to find ways of reducing our consumption which do *NOT* result in people freezing to death, but which will, co-incidentally, result in reduced emissions, ie a win-win situation whatever the case.
Rather amusingly, the one set of taxes that are pretty much designed for the rich to avoid are the cuddly climate ones. It's the rich who can afford that new hybrid or electric vehicle (or both for that matter), it's the rich who can afford to cover their mansions with solar panels to the extent that the rest of us pay for their power use, etc ad nauseum.
You have to suspect that it's the usual suspects behind all this crap and it's the eco-Nazis dancing to their tune rather than the sceptics.
" if climate change is preponderantly man-made"
Anyone who evens asks this question should be mocked and ridiculed.
Take a look from space, and image man having a "predominant" affect on the climate
via trace CO2 gases. While your out there, look out behind you for that enormous ball of burning gases.
Such gullibility, it's almost as if you are hypnotized.
At some point it will actually get a LOT hotter. Fortunately for us, we believe that is several million years in the future. In the meantime, sometimes it does, sometimes it cools. Oddly enough, these changes are on the same order of magnitude as the temperature changes on Earth although I haven't checked for correlation.
We will not need to move from the coast. Yes, ocean levels are rising -- as they have for hundreds of years. But tide gauges reveal little concern; the rate of increase is manageable. A more pressing problem is land subsidence in some areas -- often caused by human activity. We would be much better served to put our resources on the issue of land subsidence rather than "global warming."
climate sceptics are in the pay of big oil/fossil fuels are we?
Great... I'll write to BP, shell and exxon asking "Wheres my bloody money?"
Im a sceptic , not because of all the opinions that are thrown about, its because I believe in the scientific method such as
Then even after we've run through this with global warming (or cooling or climate change or whatever its called this week to match the weather we're having), theres still the thing that could be discovered to overturn said theory so its vital to keep testing said theory.
Without dissent, this will never happen.
But assuming mankinds emission of CO2 is the cause of climate change , we seem to have picked a very strange way of curbing the emission , such as building wind turbines that need a gas powered generator built to back them up, and turning off the nuclear power stations.
Mandating domestic appliances to be 5% more energy efficient would save a whole bunch more CO2, but lets rather raise power bills so that those who can afford and site solar power panels can have a feed in tariff.
And lastly , you hear of daft idea of if everyone installed a wind turbine on their house we could be micro generators and break the power of the fossil fuel lobby... except.... how big would the businesses supplying 200 000 wind turbine blades a year become, and it then start to lobby that we never even dream of building any other energy source.......
"So us climate sceptics are in the pay of big oil/fossil fuels are we?"
Without wanting to put words into his mouth I guess he'd say that you and the other unimportant ones are in their thrall rather than their pay.
All this taking of sides, self-elevation into the an assumed elite, and the assumption that any statement that appears to favour the other side or denigrate the true cause is a personal slight is tedious and stupid and not even much fun in a football ground where at least it has some element of comedy.
You hit a big part of the problem. Right now it seems that what we hear is the beliefs and BS by those with the loudest voice. Politicians, ad men, and snakeoil types have known for eons that if you shovel enough BS long enough, people will eventually believe it.
The problem here is that the BS is being shoveled and the science is still in process. I'm only a skeptic until the science is in and someone shouting at me that I'm in denial and a nutcase isn't going to change the science. Do the damn science to it's extreme limit and then let's debate if debate is necessary.
You are soooo out of date. The scientific method was changed at the turn of the century. The new method is:
1. find an opportunity
2. promote relentlessly
3. suppress counter-evidence (the pal-review process is really helpful here)
4. intimidate opponents
5. when your predictions fail, return to step 2.
> I believe in the scientific method.
Great. Go find a thermometer. Drive into the country at night. Record the temperature. Drive into the city and do the same. Repeat until you have what you believe to be an adequate data set.
Congratulations. You have just validated the urban heat island effect for yourself. This is an example of mesoscale anthropogenic climate change.
So now you have validated to your own satisfaction that ACC is a fact, up to at least the city scale. This doesn't complete the global warming picture but I think you would have to be determinedly obtuse to maintain that ACC exists up to a certain (quite large) scale but suddenly stops at larger scales.
Carbon dioxide forcing is also readily provable. If you can solve an integral and can look up the absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide, you don't have to leave your kitchen table otherwise you might need a bit of equipment and a bottle of CO2. If someone can't do one and is unwilling to do the other that's fine but to use that as a justification for telling the people who can that they're wrong (or even just not right) takes a special kind of stupid.
Rooftop wind is just silly. There are good reasons why real wind turbines are made as large as physically possible.
Large scale wind is a good interim solution as solar ramps up. The biggest gas turbine in the world generates no CO2 while it is off. If a wind project reduces the duty cycle of the peak plants that's an environmental win.
Your idea would have merit only if we could exclude scientists with vested interests.
Let's see how that works... A climate scientist wants a job and the only funded jobs are those who research proposals show that the intention is to try to prove or otherwise support the IPCC/UNFCCC claims. Do you think the scientist will rock the boat? Do you think his or her employer will allow him or her to rock the boat? Do you really think that the opinion of this scientist is worth anything at all?
Your claims about the "fossil fuel and associated industries" are so mendacious that it makes the claims of politicians seem positively angelic. Still, what do mendacity and ignorance matter in climate science given what "experts" say on the subject.
No matter which way you slice it a significant proportion of the world's largest publically traded companies operate fossil fuel industries. So if scientists were so easily bought by the lure of grant money you would think business like Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP Billiton, et al. could afford to buy a few.
Shell and BP are two of the founders of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia. Those are the miscreants promoting CAGW. Who do you think are getting the billions of dollars being spent on wind and solar systems? They are energy companies, not simply fossil fuel companies.
They managed to get billions of taxpayer dollars by creating a non-existent problem, and having the 'solutions'. They are laughing at us thinking they are evil for fighting global warming when they are the major beneficiaries.
"A climate scientist wants a job and the only funded jobs are those who research proposals show that the intention is to try to prove or otherwise support the IPCC/UNFCCC claims."
Very cute. Even assuming that was true, what's stopping the scientist from concluding at the end of the study "my research doesn't prove or otherwise support the IPCC/UNFCCC claims"? The funding is already used at that point, so there's no reason to lie.
I'll tell you what stops him/her. The lack of evidence for the denier point of view.
In fact, climate research was funded by the Koch brothers, in an attempt to prove their denier claims. Can you guess what happened? Surprise! The study concluded the temperature increases are real and have no other explanation than the CO2 emissions caused by humans.
So no, the issue is not the funding. The issue is all the evidence points against the denier claims.
Furthermore, scientists love to prove other scientists wrong. See this video showing how happy this scientist is after recently finishing a study proving that chemists were wrong for many decades about how alkaline metals interact with water: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmlAYnFF_s8
And a study proving the climate scientists are wrong and the deniers are right would earn you a Nobel price, so there's a lot to win by going against the consensus that climate change is real and caused by humans.
The only pesky thing stopping you from doing it is lack of evidence, not your bullshit conspiracy theories.
Sorry for using "denier" instead of "skeptic" during the comment, but your use of "alarmists" makes that fair game.
>>"Very cute. Even assuming that was true, what's stopping the scientist from concluding at the end of the study "my research doesn't prove or otherwise support the IPCC/UNFCCC claims"? The funding is already used at that point, so there's no reason to lie."
Right or wrong about whether this is the case, your logic is faulty. Research scientists live from grant to grant and the previous one is a determinant on whether you get the next. Publish a paper that gets damned by your peers, your chance of the next grant is reduced.
Asking the general public their views on climate change is pointless to you only because the results don't favor your argument.
If the situation were reversed, public demand for action would be your main argument.
Scientists are NOTscreaming from the rooftops, or from the tops of anything else. There are thousands of scientists producing tens of thousands of peer reviewed studies refuting CAGW, and demonstrating that the current climate is neither extreme or unprecedented.
In fact, thousands of scientists are producing papers clearly demonstrating that there is and will never be any negative impacts from the level of CO2 and temperature projected by climate models.
There is no consensus that we are facing CAGW, if anything, the consensus is just the opposite, i. e., the slight improvement in warmth and CO2 levels are beneficial for all living organisms.
Spending billions on faulty models and propagandizing is a total waste and condemns the poorest to perpetual poverty and miserable living conditions. CAGW proponents should stop denying the science and rethink their elitist inclinations-- they are never the ones reducing their standard of living, in fact, jet setting around the world to climate "conferences" uses more hydrocarbon fuel than most of the world's poor use in a lifetime.
You wouldn't care, ZThomm, to provide some links to those «tens of thousands of peer reviewed [sic !] studies refuting CAGW,, and demonstrating that the current climate is neither extreme or unprecedented», now would you ? Or are you perhaps referring to «studies» in a journal run by yourself and Mr Page and reviewed by the Koch brothers ?... ;-)
WTF, there is no consensus from scientists!?! What kind of comment is this: "thousands and thousands of scientists are producing papers thet <insert my viewpoint here>"? In the same way I can claim (but not with straight face) that "thousands and thousands of scientists" support unicorns. Here: "thousands and thousands of scientists are producing papers that confirm existance of unicorns". Done, next question.
Maybe you heard about NASA:
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ (with references at the bottom of the page)
Problems with the Reg article itself, as I see it:
1. Saying that Professor XY wants to manipulate people to think that there is a man made climate change, does not mean that man made climate change does not exist (if I read the article correctly, that is the conclusion that the author is trying to manipulate readers to understand). The two statements (about the professor, and about the existance of man made climate change) are logicaly unrelated.
In the same way you can write for example:
- "Professor XY says that lizard people do not exist." Ha, isn't that exactly the kind of statement that a lizard person would want us to believe? Therefore lizard people exist. (again, if I understand the article correctly, this is the logic from the author)
2. As somebody already pointed out, polling general population on a scientific question is meaningless. The answer to any scientific question can be given only by science, and science is no democracy. After the answer is established, then can the general public be asked what to do about it, do they want to spend their tax money on it or not. (in my opinon even that is not so simple, because CO2 produced by one country affects all people of earth (if the GW theory is correct), but it would be too optimistic from me to expect majority of people in todays world to accept any inconvenience from them to reduce harm to others, unless it is punishable by law)
At the end, I see that a lot of people think that scientists are falsifying their research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial ) in order to continue their projects, so they can continue receiving their salaries. Here I do not understand 2 things:
a) That point of view assumes that scientists are tweaking their results towards the conclusion that will bring them the most money. Since I think that Oil/Gas/Coal lobby has more money than Wind/Solar lobby, I would expect that those money greedy scientist, if anything, would be working for CO2 producers. (i admit i did not check how much money these industries are giving to influence politics and science, that is just my assumption)
b) if scientists were really just looking for some crisis to extort more research money, they could find dozens of other critical issues, and would leave climate because of so much resistance from various industries, just to make their life easier. Like bacterial resistance to antibiotics (superbugs), overfishing, polution of water (sea, rivers, lakes), deforrestation and destruction of soil... There are positive goals to research, not only crisis points, but looks like people think that scientists need to invent CRISIS in order to EXTORT money which, according to that logic, they would not otherwise receive.
Total disclosure: as I studied science, my strong opinion is that the the arguments coming from scientists are correct, and therefore I agree that there is a man made rising temperature. I am not 100% sure how it will end (it might make fantastic climate for trees, which will grow like crazy, and soak all extra CO2, acting like negative feedback), but I have a feeling that it will not end up well.
>>"1. Saying that Professor XY wants to manipulate people to think that there is a man made climate change, does not mean that man made climate change does not exist (if I read the article correctly, that is the conclusion that the author is trying to manipulate readers to understand). "
I've just re-read the article. Nowhere does it say whether AGW is or isn't real. Every statement in this article on the subject directly relates to whether or not the survey says what the professor says it does. Here's one for you - re-read the article, see if you can find any part that says or implies what you say it does above, and if not, retract your statement.
Human contributions to "climate change", although you may wish to assign a great level of responsibility to such, are more akin to a child peeing in an Olympic swimming pool.
The sun, the cyclical, and the ever changing power of nature is the true culprit.
Burning all the fossil fuel on earth wouldn't have delayed or diminished any of the past ice ages, or their melting cycles one bit.
A single major volcano erupting does more in a day than man in 50 years.
The hysteria over climate change today is merely a means for corrupt leadership to seize ever more wealth ftom the average citizen, and for the globalist elites to reduce developed nations to the level of third world shitholes.
Certainly, don't pollute unnecessarily, and don't consume wildly, but when you're told to radically change your standard of living (usually through taxes, fees, or higher costs), have the brains to realize you are being fooled and robbed to finance with your money, your own enslavement at the hands of the globalist elite. If they get to use your money at a zero interest rate while risking none of theirs...guess who gets even richer. Hint: not you.
Wize up folks. A few years ago it was "Global Warming", but when the "best scientific minds" were shown to be suffering recto-cranial-inversions, as it was demonstrated to be untrue, they changed their story to "climate change", allowing any weather event to serve as "proof" of their latest theory...whichever way it might lean. Scientists, by the way, indebted to government elites for their funding.
Stop being fooled.
Nothing you do has an offsetting effect against the wanton pollution and waste of 4 billion chinamen and indians. Clean them up first, then chase the already diminishing returns in the first world nations...much more effect for the money spent.
Tell the elites to sell a couple jets, mansions, yachts or bugattis before telling you to hide in the dark, shivering.
A better way to gauge the importance of an issue would be to ask actually scientists (you know, the people who have an in depth knowledge on these matters) who are screaming from the rooftops.
Their screaming always appears to be 'give us more money' or 'we are right even if we can't prove it' or both.
When they actually produce something that stands up to a rigorous engineering quality examination and not the standard pal review of some paper that relies on if, maybe or possibly people might begin to think they have something to offer by way of insight. Until then they need to go back and try to get their models to actually look something like what is happening in the real world and I don't mean tweaking the data and/or fiddling with obscure variables in the model to get it to almost fit the past.
It is very important to ask the people what they are thinking. This will steer the politicians to enact policies which are democratic. That is, reflect the will of the people. There are a lot of people out there who would love to subvert this, I'm not one of them.
Unfortunately the scientists have lost credibility. That's why no one is listening any more.
I'm sure there are people doing good work in this area but unfortunately they are drowned out by the vocal few who keep telling us it is the end of the world. Well we've been listening to that for 30 years and it is getting a bit stale.
Global temperature is not behaving as predicted
Global sea ice is not doing too badly
We haven't seen mass extinctions (a snail that miraculously did a regeneration from nothing as I recall)
The climate refugees seem to be staying put
The planet is actually getting greener
Crop yields are looking good, they'd look better if we weren't turning food into biofuel
Gav and his mates would have got away with the '2014 hottest year ever' guff 50 years ago. It is largely the work of public opinion that brought to the fore the admission that there is a 72% uncertainty to the claim and that difference was well within the error bars.
So aiden, given these failures who do you think should make the decisions for you and yours? I think it should be you. Not a scientist with tenure to protect on the other side of the world.
Of course policy makers should listen, but listen critically. Which is in their heart of hearts is what they do. Sure they will turn up to climate conferences and make promises they have no intention of keeping but that's part of the job description.
Ultimately if you want to sit in the dark, waiting for the wind to blow, that's your choice, but not one you should force on me and mine.
"who are screaming from the rooftops."
No they aren't, they're goign about their day jobs manicaly trying to paper over any cracks that have constantly appeared in the 'theory'.
This reminds me of......
"You have made some observations and calculations, which show that humanity is doomed unless it changes its ways. You have total belief in the accuracy of your predictions. Do you:
(a) Announce your results, but keep your workings secret for fear that someone will criticise them.
(b) Announce your results, but set up a group of companies to make yourself mega-rich on the back of the scare you have created.
(c) Drop everything, including secrecy and profit, and devote yourself to saving the human race."
LOL. The money spent fighting the myth of global warming pales in comparison to what power grabbing governments are spending to promote it.
Those espousing their fears of global warming took over 1700 private jets to attend their latest conference. Do they seem that fearful over global warming? Look at what they do, not what they say.
How would you like to cross a bridge or ride on a large ship or airliner that was designed and built using 'junk' science like the fake science being used to hype the 'man-made' global nonsense? I wouldn't - If engineers don't use REAL science, then their projects would fail big time. If I had been using the same level of 'science' as these climate alarmists, all of my projects in large manufacturing plants would have failed miserably and I would have been looking for a new line of work decades ago. I can remember my High School geology teacher talking about global climate over the ages, and that the Medieval, Roman, Minoan and Egyptian periods were ALL warmer than now. If one looks at the rise and fall of temperatures and CO2 over the ages, it is clear that CO2 changes FOLLOW temperature changes. In fact, during one of the many ice ages, the CO2 levels were about 8 times higher than now. How can that possibly be if CO2 is the temperature control valve the alarmists claim? It is all utter nonsense, used to further their agenda of more and more control over every aspect of our lives.
'be to ask actually scientists' - Which scientists do you ask? The ones saying that climate change is due to human activity or the ones saying it isn't. Or the ones who made claims 20 years ago that were treated as absolute proof and now are seen as completely incorrect. Asking the man in the street may not give you a absolute result but one on par with the experts.
PT Barnum said it all..."You can fool some of the people all of the time!" Clearly, this Floridian didn't see the headline "Coldest decade in US recorded history...and it's only half over!" Of course IPCC would do anything to keep that news from us! The people in Massachusetts would tell you it's true, though!
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019