"the greater good"

I chose not to take what others say on faith, you are free to do so, scientist have been wrong even to the death of others, so believe and trust in them if you will, I'm not so easily convinced.

He says writing on a computer in a country who’s technological development and supremacy owes itself to science.

Your car is safe?
This food is safe to eat.
This water is safe to drink.

The amount of stuff you have to take on faith in the modern world is staggering, and you cannot exist in it without taking things on faith.

The choice is simply who you have faith in.


The main issue though is the false dichotomy - you’re vehemently stating we shouldn’t trust those pesky scientists, they could be lying: whilst believing the anti-climate chance lobbyists and energy companies who have been funding the counter narrative.

Why are the energy lobbyists and Republican polticians more trustworthy than the tens of thousands of climate scientists that have worked over the last 40 years?

If your willing to believe that the entire scientific community has been engaged in a massive orchestrated shill effort for the last 40 years; but the large energy companies that have been actively funding anti climate change politics, studies, and attempts to change public perceptions in order to oppose and stifle policies that harm their bottom line are acting out of the goodness of their heart, then I have some magic beans to sell you.

For me the pro climate change arguments have equal if not less credible than the anti.  Perhaps more evidence will change that but I haven't seen any yet.  Al Gore was so convincing and positive, see how well that went for him.

individual freedom stops when it interferes another's individual freedom, this has always been so.  Criminals pay a price for their choice.  "greater good" is removing that choice.

standards of evidence?  I mean I just said how the "studies" on cholesterol were all faked, bs, made up. 

that's one of many examples.

For me the pro climate change arguments have equal if not less credible than the anti. 

Perhaps more evidence will change that but I haven't seen any yet.  Al Gore was so convincing and positive, see how well that went for him.

The research on that particular topic is all fairly recent, so how many samples do we really have?

Your car is safe?

This food is safe to eat.

This water is safe to drink.

If your willing to believe that the entire scientific community has been engaged in a massive orchestrated shill effort for the last 40 years...

Most scientists are political scientists paid by the government to reach whatever conclusion the government wants. Especially the AOC "the world is going to end in 8 years" crowd.

You seem to have issues trusting scientists - despite the entire modern world being built on science - and have no problem believing groups that are even less trustworthy.

If your willing to believe that the entire scientific community has been engaged in a massive orchestrated shill effort for the last 40 years; but the large energy companies that have been actively funding anti climate change politics, studies, and attempts to change public perceptions in order to oppose and stifle policies that harm their bottom line are acting out of the goodness of their heart, then I have some magic beans to sell you.

But nice trolling comparing religious nutjob theories with the broad and general consensus of thousands of individuals scientists who have studied the climate and potential outcomes of climate change.

I trust scientists who are not funded by the government.

And also ones that don't have a monopoly on armageddon scenarios.

Except - given the links you cited - they make statements that fit into your broad narrative: in which case it seems you find their conclusions more than adequate!

Al Gore recently purchased a multi-million dollar home on the beach with money he collected as a shill for the green energy industrial complex.

I would believe those who actually do something practical and effective to ensure clean water and air.

Do you think the water and air is as clean/good as it could or should be?  If not why not?

Al Gore recently purchased a multi-million dollar home on the beach with money he collected as a shill for the green energy industrial complex.

Are you kidding me?  How many multi-million dollar homes have been purchased by oil industry executives?

Does RICH = LIAR?

Im assuming you missed the part in bold; as it seems to have fallen of your reply.

The established companies are diversified.  Look up some of the heavy hitters producing the country's electricity and you'll probably see wind and natural gas operations among their other (aging) facilities.

The biggest polluters give the largest campaign contributions.

Except - given the links you cited - they make statements that fit into your broad narrative: in which case it seems you find their conclusions more than adequate!

You're missing the Irony. 

Al Gore made all of his money as a prophet claiming the beaches were going to be underwater within our lifetimes.