Moderators: nickj, Lady of Mystery, Mandrake, bananafish, support
Grimshaw wrote:
I've read the same thing. Methane is considerably more damaging to the atmosphere than CO2, yet no-one seems concerned with methane.
cragglecat wrote:You are rather implying that no climate change scientists have any sense of ethical conduct and that they are purely motivated by funding.
Grimshaw wrote:The reason you haven't heard of it is because in America Coleman and his bunch couldn't even get on the air about it. Fox News were the only ones that ran the story, none of the others wanted to know.
Journalism eh? Who needs a rounded argument?
Grimshaw wrote:I'm saying if it were me, and I'm an alright kind of chap, i certainly wouldn't present any evidence to the contrary if it meant i would be put out of a job because of that evidence. Or rather, i'd find a way to discredit the evidence.
nickj wrote:I know I haven't got the time or inclination to wade through the whole lot so I rely on the news and take what I hear with a pinch of salt whilst acknowledging that, somewhere in the tales of impending death and destruction, there was probably a core of good science.
Tomo wrote:It's been a fascinating thread. Can I ask a key question here? Regardless of what you believe about climate change, how did you arrive at that belief?
There's no punchline. It's a serious question.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest