Climate change is inconsequential (because Peak Oil is a bigger issue)

[Bofferbrauer2]

epicurean said:

There is growing sentiment that global warming will have minimal impact. I saw an article a few weeks back saying that somewhere around 70% said minimal to no impact based on a survey of climatologist and meteorologist, but for the life of me I can't find the original article, which wasn't from a biased source. Now all I can find is one from Britbart, which pisses me off, because I wouldn't believe it if it was the only place I found it. But here it is: https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2015/07/31/new-study-majority-of-climate-scientists-dont-agree-with-consensus/

It at least has a link to the actual study. Here's another link from National Association of scholars where it's estimated to be closer to 40% - https://www.nas.org/articles/Estimated_40_Percent_of_Scientists_Doubt_Manmade_Global_Warming

I don't know about global warming, I'm not qualified - but I am gaining steam in believing Google is filtering its results to not show dissenting opinions. I could find none of them using Google, a few more using Edge, and the most using DuckDuckGo. Feel free to experiment by typing anything about a study going against the consensus of global warming among the different search engines and you'll see it too. Basically Google just pulled up articles confirming Global Warming and one about how Americans deny it because they're dumb. Never really believed they were filtering (I guess) conservative content till now.

Checked both links.

Breitbart is, well, Breitbart, and I take everything they say with a Megaton of salt.

NAS, or national Assocoiation of Scolars, however is a conservative advocacy group, and it's positions are very close to those of hardline conservatives and neoconservatives They blocked readings of Civic rights in Universities and called for rejecting multiculturalism in school newspapers while at the same time preaching freedom of speech. They tried to shrink the history lessons down by limiting military, economic, diplomatic, scientific and political history in favor of historical teachings about race, class and gender.

As for their article, it has one major issue: They just say "scientists" - which can be of any science and thus not necessarily qualified for the question, like climatologists would be. They are also quoting the Singer and his NIPCC, which is a climate change denialist group. The fact that despite this they could only get up to 40% is basically shattering their whole thread they were trying to spin. They had to scrape the bottom of the barrel and still only reached 40%.

Last edited by Bofferbrauer2 - on 01 April 2019