Originally Posted by bigmc6000
Because I think all the scientists who have reviewed the data and come to more moderate conclusion of "we need to study this more" have a more realistic approach. Their "science" is just as good as the "science" of the people you believe so who's in the right?
So, it's about their approach, more than the science? How can the "science" of one group be just as good as the "science" of another group and yet they reach contradictory positions based on (presumably) the same data? Are there multiple scientific truths? I think not. Also, your thoughts on how scientists deal with data that doesn't fit theories, is naively simplistic, and, more importantly, doesn't reflect the actual practice or history of science.
As has been pointed out by any number of people on this forum alone, none of the sources of information you cite has any credibility in the real scientific community. (As opposed to the alternate universe "scientific" community where anyone who publishes anything on a science related topic qualifies as a respected scientist, in any and all fields.) Contrary to what you believe, there is an overwhelming consensus in the climatology community that the threat of global warming is real. Contrary to what you believe, most of what you think are legitimate scientific articles are rubbish. The only question in my mind is whether you are intent on denying reality out of a basic inability to understand, out of fear, out of economic self-interest, or for some other reason. Clearly, you have no rational basis for your beliefs, despite your belief to the contrary, but it would be interesting to know what exactly does motivate you. Unfortunately, I think you lack the self-awareness to provide the answer yourself.
Fortunately, however, science-denial is no longer the order of the day in the White House. Fortunately, you are not a policy maker. Fortunately, the voices of reputable scientists are now being listened to in Washington, rather than ignored.