Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill8
Since his "evidence" consists of 600 scientists signing a paper, then presumably if the other side gets 6000 scientists to sign a paper, then the right wing would have to apologize and pay for all the delay they've caused out of their own personal pockets.
Like that'll happen.
The way he's presenting his "fact" is silly histrionics. It's not science, it has nothing to do with the various theories, it's just politically motivated polemic that means nothing more than any other "alarmist" emotional polemic.
And it happens to be conveinient for the right wing (and the corporations that pay for these kinds of papers and events) to promote this point of view, just as it was conveinient for the tobacco companies to pay for years to promote false claims that tobacco wasn't harmful - to avoid blame and costs.
|
Actually, a lot of the scientists who are claimed to have signed off on it had nothing to do with the report whatsoever, and several even filed lawsuits over the fact they were claimed to have signed off on it and in fact felt quite the opposite. The UN's governing body on climate change is about as useful as the UN itself..BULLSHIT.