I didn't like what? You do realize that there is science outside of the UN that supports climate change as well.
And what do they say about CO2 affecting the climate? Enlighten me. It's fun seeing you throw the IPCC under the bus. That's a good start.
Oh, I thought you meant someone who's actually done the studies on a large scale. CO2 science is just a website that collects editorials that support their cause.
Creates editorials based on science. My point is that scientists don't have a consensus and are still doing the work. We shouldn't stop the work and make policies before solid evidence is brought out. It probably will take decades for us to understand how the natural climate system works. Everyone is supporting a cause. The problem is which one is closer to the absolute truth? None can be the absolute truth at this point, but only approximate it maybe.
Is this how you feel about all scientists?
No just the ones that want to rob me with bogus projections which they are now backing away from (Jones, Mann).
I think your biggest problem in grasping this is that you're thinking in the now, in the box, and can't think beyond that.
Again this is another statement that can be reverted onto you. The people making claims that man-made CO2 is creating a current crisis haven't been able to back it up. This is already confirmed by Jones.
BTW this concept of "thinking outside the box" is one of the most overused cliches which people use to vaguely dodge an argument. The "box" or "paradigm" or "concept" that is being talked about is that CO2 is the main climate driver. I'm saying this concept or box is too simple an explanation and the scientists will have to develop a much more complicated paradigm to match the ultra complicated reality of the world. Concepts are not absolute reality. They can be useful when they mimic reality closely. The reality is that we have to get scientists (not just climate scientists) from all disciplines including Geology, Astrophysics, climate scientists, ocean scientists, biologists etc. to come up with enough good science so that a possible big picture paradigm can be created so we can actually see our effect on nature and it's effect on us and what we can actually control. Currently we are nowhere near that.
Blacklisting scientists who disagree with the current paradigm will actually slow the scientific process down.
In the overall realm of things lifelong planet wise, yes it is an emergency. I think the problem is too many of you can't think beyond your own lives or pocketbooks. It's a shame.
Is that what you think of people who care about their pocketbooks?
Conservatives believe that liberals have no compassion for taxpayers and I think this is more evidence of that. I do not for one second believe that you don't care about your pocketbook and I don't believe that special interest groups and rent seekers that will benefit from cap and trade don't care about making money.
Tell me, why should a taxpayer feel guilty for keeping money they EARNED and those who collect from a regulation (unearned money) shouldn't? You've got the cart before the horse. We want green jobs to EARN their way. It's not an entitlement.
Do you not agree? Really?
There is no consensus on CO2. Even the Royal Society has to now allow for different points of view. It's almost like talking to people who have amnesia and can't remember important recent facts. With the debacle on IPCC reports there has to be more study done before we blame a trace gas as a main cause for climate change, because you do realise there is a thing called natural climate change don't you?