Actually, you're almost right. It's not possible to know with absolute
certainty what caused extinctions. There are some good theories (that
would be scientific theories, which include forming and testing
hypothesis).
You can not make a serious claim that the small dollars being spent on
climate research in any way influences the overwhelming data on how
mankind has affected the environment, esp. when compared to the
enormous amount of money big oil and heavy industries are spending to
try and debunk or undercut the science with their own dramatic press
nonsense and commercials.
The vast consensus is that mankind has been negatively influencing the
environment since the Industrial Revolution began, and it's generally
getting worse not better. Something needs to be done, and we need to
start now.
Science is not about taking pronouncements as "gospel." In fact,
skepticism is the basis for the scientific method. Those not well
educated believe that because there is some overblown and ginned up
controversy that means the whole notion of adverse, mankind created
climate change is in doubt. It isn't. Those not well educated look at
a cold winter or a violent storm or whatever and proclaim that there
is no such thing as global warming or that it's a fact. It's much more
nuance than that.
Anything w'hine posts on this subject matter is colored by the fact that
he is a corporate apologist and an investor in oil companies.
Obfuscation is part of his apologist's game.
Similar Threads
Who gives a ****?
Threaded Mode
