No, I'm pretty much going to keep thinking man made climate change is a thing, given how easy it is to demonstrate the basic principle of greenhouse gasses and how easy it is to measure greenhouse gasses.
That being said If climate science becomes more about punching the other side into submission than about looking for truth I am going to take new research as to the effects and pace of climate change less seriously.
If a field was built on a less solid foundation, like say economics, started doing that? Well yeah, I'd absolutely start taking everything they say with an even bigger grain of salt.
Not by being mean, but by exaggerating the scale of expected catastrophes, by talking about imminent doomsday, by demanding "moral" change in form of "eat less meat, do not fly, have less children" instead of investments in new technologies, climate change "witnesses" do much more harm than deniers. They discredit the ecological movement and make it look like a crazy religion preaching the end of the world.
The unreasonable perseverance on CO2 levels not only distracts attention from truly severe issues, like loss of amazon rainforests, but makes them worse by introducing policies like biofuel quotas.
This whole "you're with us or against us" thing? It's not working for me, and if it keeps happening I'm going to have to not be with you.
reply