Hacker Read

m0zg | karma 1604 | avg karma 0.37 · 2021-10-21 00:43:36

You'd literally be lynched by a mob if you were to do research to disprove any of it or in fact even question the means and methods. So I'm not surprised there's "consensus". That's not to say the consensus is incorrect here, that's just to say that it doesn't mean a whole lot. Under the normal circumstances scientists never 99% "agree" on anything.

wolverine876 | karma 13735 | avg karma 1.72 · 2021-10-21 00:59:35

Do you have evidence of that?

fareesh | karma 3904 | avg karma 2.85 · 2021-10-21 01:14:37

I don't think the word literally was meant literally in this case

wolverine876 | karma 13735 | avg karma 1.72 · 2021-10-21 01:22:12

Sure, and reading it that way, any evidence?

slt2021 | karma 2393 | avg karma 2.16 · 2021-10-21 01:29:48

such research will never get funding because of ESG mandates for companies' Boards coming from shareholders.

Try to get funding for research like this and your career will be cancelled instantly

reply

wolverine876 | karma 13735 | avg karma 1.72 · 2021-10-21 01:44:00

So no evidence.

tsimionescu | karma 17553 | avg karma 2.17 · 2021-10-21 02:36:01

Stop spreading this misinformation. Climate change has started as a hypothesis like any other, first proved by oil company researchers (the company proceeded to bury the research and force everyone to sign NDAs). There were many competing theories (including the default that no climate change is happening), and climate change has been consistently attacked and belittled by powerful interests for 50 years.

Slowly though, the research kept trickling in and became incontrovertible, and alarming. As the question of IF became scientifically settled, funding naturally dried up for the fringe still looking for alternatives - just like funding for flat earth science is pretty dry today. This is normal and good and doesn't show bias, except towards simple scientific truths.

reply