One of the major problems is the scientist handling the issue are not behaving as scientist should, non-believers are exorcised from the scientific community, data is hidden and threated to be destroyed before exposed, journals that publish papers that don't support are punished etc. If you can not question a science without being publicly attracted as a fool and tool for the oil companies there is a problem. People are treating global warming like a region and not like science. Hell how many of the people who are shocked that not everyone buys what is a very new and world changing scientific theory really even understand it beyond "carbon traps heat and they have pretty charts to prove it"? During my life time I have seen science go from telling me we were slipping into an ice age to we are over heating. You can't be surprised if people starting doubting science after 180s like that. Time and time again what we "know" turns out to be wrong so questioning the conclusions of the experts is hardly radical. I see blind acceptance as a bigger problem. When wrong doing is discovered by the leading scientist in the field it should not be white washed because you don't want unnecessary doubt introduced.


I doubt the theory would have received the almost instantaneous acceptance it did if it wasn't for the fact that it told so many people what the always knew deep in their hearts, oil is evil and killing the planet. How could these people not rush to embrace a science that proves one of their core beliefs? That doesn't make any more or less true just more likely to be accepted regardless of the truth. That in by it self is reason to look at harder than normal.

Personally I would not call myself a global skeptic but I am a huge skeptic many of the scientist and the integrity of the process. Hell look at how much faith is placed on unproven and constantly changing computer models. Funny how those unproven models seem to be constantly tweaked further and further toward the sky is falling scenario. You would think there would more back and forth but no always bleaker always with the cry to stop burning fossil fuels, in the west only of course.

The hard cold truth is it doesn't matter. Unless someone invents an new energy source that is cheaper and more portable than fossil fuels then we will burn all of it we can find. I know everyone assume we can fix that buy just spending more money on research but that leads us back to the faith issue. There does not have to be a cheaper answer out there simply because we want there to be one. Do basic research but you can't force the issue simply by spending more money. You just end up spending more money on pie in the sky ideas. Get a working theory then dump loads of cash into it.

China will soon be the world's biggest consumer of energy. Who really believes they are going to stop burning coal? If the climate really is heating up as quickly as they say then we need to focus on adapting to life in a warmer world because the idea of getting away from fossil fuel is a pipe dream. And no the argument that we should at least try isn't a valid argument, it might make people feel better but it won't change the outcome. The other hard truth is even if the climate does change as much as they claim it will we will still be well with in the normal range for the planet. The transition could be devastating but the planet and the human race will survive and adapt.