View Single Post
Old 08-14-2019, 03:19 PM   #6497 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
aerohead's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 15,304
Thanks: 23,414
Thanked 6,920 Times in 4,415 Posts

Originally Posted by redpoint5 View Post
Of course I don't understand the scale, as nobody does. My understanding is much worse than those who are devoted to studying the changes. That said, most that study the issue are looking for a problem, which is much different than looking to merely quantify predicted changes. If you're looking for a problem, and especially if your financial backing is predicated on finding a problem, the probability of finding a problem is extremely high, along with the incentive to overstate the problem while completely ignoring any evidence that would support improvement in living conditions, large and small.

Losing species is not good, and it's something to be avoided, but it isn't at the top of my priority list, as our species is most important to me. We've already impacted species more directly by displacing their natural environments and inserting our preferred species. It's disrupted life more than global warming has, or at least impacted them in a shorter period of time.
I'd like to know why you believe this,or if there was a particular event,speech,document,whatever,which convinced you that 'most' scientists were doing this,or are motivated this way.
I do know that S.Fred Singer was paid $60,000 a year,plus expenses, by the fossil-fuels industry to sow doubt about climate change science.What a coincidence that all his scientific conclusions were favorable to the fossil-fuels industry!There must be something about the water in Virginia.
Photobucket album:
The Following User Says Thank You to aerohead For This Useful Post:
litesong (08-14-2019)