I lump climate change deniers into the same category as flat-earthers. Although I have more respect for the latter, as at least they aren't blindly swallowing self-serving nonsense spewed by ignorant politicians and certain news outlets.
How many of those are in climate related sciences?
"many"? The consensus amongst scientists in the relevant fields is quite compelling.
There are no such scientists, let alone "many". And it doesn't matter what people "hypothesize".
I know the names of the handful of "lukewarm" climate scientists who don't hold the consensus position; none of them take the position that you put forth, and I can be certain that you can't name any of these "many" scientists.
The scientists who claim "current changes are, like all past changes, caused by other factors than the man-made" are not taken seriously by the mainstream, form an unimaginably slim minority and frankly are dangerously wrong.
For example, Ignaz Semmelweis (from wiki):
> Despite various publications of results where hand washing reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. Semmelweis could offer no acceptable scientific explanation for his findings, and some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and mocked him for it. In 1865, Semmelweis suffered a nervous breakdown and was committed to an asylum, where he died at age 47 of pyaemia
Especially when the "side of science" has become so extremely tied to the idea that the only real solution is taxes that one political side has come up with and of course voting for them. And if you question the tax side of things, you're a filthy denier.
The article itself mentions Trump twice. Tell me all about how it’s not political.
> there are no inconsistencies in my testimonies against the government, against the fossil fuel industry
I lump climate change blamers into the same category. The moment you start talking about individual country (or any specific body) per capita and cumulative, you're making a political statements that someone is responsible and needs to be accountable because of their history (back to the 1750s in this one). ie These people are bad because there's metrics that fit my message and all other people are good because they have different metrics.
Seriously, how is the regional political accounting relevant to the objective analysis of what the correlation, causation and projections are?
I guess the idea is something like: "you're historically the worst (even if you're not the worst today) and you have resources, so it's up to you to try to fix it but we're not gonna even suggest how, but just sayin'". It reads like a lack of confidence in their own conclusions.
More like "So you deserve a larger responsibility for fixing this and we're suggesting, maybe start with stop mining coal and not electing a president who calls climate change a Chinese hoax?" but sure, same thing.
>so it's up to you to try to fix it but we're not gonna even suggest how,
That's the thing though, they are saying how. And it's to give money to the rest of the world and curb your production to allow them to pollute in your place which is "fair".
At least the flat-earthers are harmless. The climate-change deniers are preventing necessary action on issues of life and death.