Would you agree the truth on this issue matters?
I'm just not buying the popular chant that the science is settled.
Do I think truth on the issue matters? I don't think that properly or improperly cited statistics would make a difference.
Having more people agree on something doesn't make it right. Your silly articles don't make you right.
What's the difference between 87, 88, 97, and hearsay? I'll stop blabbering about my own "biases" after I keep blabbering about them like 15 more times. I work in research very closely related to the field. From everything that I can see, and from those around me, I can think of one person in my small sample size that doesn't believe that global warming is real. That's probably comfortably somewhere between 87 and 97.
But, I'll stop there. Why does this number matter? Answer: it fucking doesn't. How many billion people believe in Christianity? Islam? Well? Who's right? Obviously there's a fair share of "wrong." Science doesn't think either of them are right. Unless you want to bend science. Ah, that's right. Bending science...
This issue has become such a politically intertwined issue. Tell me, WHY do Democrats always believe that global warming impacts the environment, while Republicans always disagree with it? Could it be, that maybe, just maybe... people choose their viewpoints based upon their party they identify with? I THINK SO.
I'm so done listening to the opposite side. Why? I'm done listening to POLITICS. This isn't a political discussion where he-said she-said matters. It's not. It's a scientific matter. And there's nothing more irritating than when people who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about... do.
I'm not here to convince you of anything. The one thing you share in common with a liberal is your ability to suck up whatever viewpoint you're supposed to. I'm not a higher power. I don't *know* anything anymore than the next person. But I know about planetary geophysics. I'm familiar with atmospheric sciences. I don't give a rats ass about 97 or 95 or 91 or 21 or 2 or any of that. Between my peers and myself, we talk in data. We talk in studies. We point things out. More than just adding the "amount of papers" we can cite for our support. Bottom line, from my own experiences: only ever experienced one scientific researcher in my field refute the claim. And his claim was that cycles are natural and "we just don't know" because historical data pre-recent history is weak and inaccurate. Which is a weak argument in itself.
Raaaawwrrrrr midnight rant.