That's because this entire field is so heavily politicised that people are petitioning to have dissenters be jailed every other year When you can get rid of the fascism in the science and stop making it more profitable to bullshit studies and lie, people will start actually caring. Until then, you'll just have to deal with the fact that no one wants a carbon tax to destroy their economies and lives to create a bullshit solar and wind economy while ignoring the fact that these economies are more destructive than our shit now. [spoiler]Nuclear could be an option but Europeans lost their brains to Chernobyl's lack of safety systems and America got spooked[/spoiler] [spoiler]The stigma around dissent against climate change was created by ENRON lobbying the Clinton Administration[/spoiler] [spoiler]Why do you say you care about lobbying and corporation sponsored shit and then dont know about the history of this?[/spoiler]

I honestly don't care for the politics of it, I prefer to deal worth the facts. Our carbon emissions are affecting the climate. We need to do something about it or the damage will be irreversible (some already is). What we do, how and when, are complicated issues but what we don't need is people refusing to accept those two facts above.

[quote]I honestly don't care for the politics of it, I prefer to deal worth the facts. [/quote] I would too but I can't and neither can anyone else because the entire field are liberals only hiring liberals and posting studies that support the shit. When you go into science and research, the sheer amount of "You cant publish this because it doesnt support the narrative" is disgusting. [quote]Our carbon emissions are affecting the climate. [/quote] How much? The IPCC changes it every minute from OMG WERE ALL GOING TO DIE RIGHT NOW to Oh, it's small. This is where politics comes in and screeches about the former [quote]We need to do something about it or the damage will be irreversible (some already is).[/quote] We literally don't know this I'll put some stuff you should look at in a spoiler at the bottom. The amount of bullshit in this field approaches Addyi levels of corruption ("the female Viagra" that instead acts like a date rаpe drug. Look it up, it's quite hilarious) [quote]What we do, how and when, are complicated issues but what we don't need is people refusing to accept those two facts above.[/quote] It actually isn't. If you're so concerned with the environment, go nuclear. Waste? Liquid salt reactors use the waste and break it down to 2% of the mass inserted, collect a bunch and do it over and over again. Why don't we have this? 1.) Nixon rimmed us. Instead of investing in the low pressure reactors which would've almost been impossible to screw up, Nixon instead chose high pressure reactors and to build them in California to line his own pockets 2.) Nookler iz scruy. Muh Chrynoobl, muh Fookeeshmr (Chernobyl had no security measures and Fukishima...don't build your shit on a fissure) [spoiler]This is just a tiny portion of the stuff you should question severely to shit that's just like "lol" http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-enron-wants-global-warming ENRON lobbies to destroy credibility of all who oppose global warming and wish to profit off of the fear http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/indium/mcs-2013-indiu.pdf The material for solar panels is rare as hell, expensive, has to be refined massively and you require electrically conducting glass. This would all be outsourced to China as Germany has done, for instance. Solar panels have a set lifetime. They degrade over the years until they're basically no better than a piece of silicon on your roof. Also, the "efficiency" that is on the label is actually out of around 70% of total possible efficiency. There's a physical limit to how good solar panels can get. Right now, most up and coming/in development solar panels run about 10-15% of that 70% limit, and pretty much all solar panels will degrade past 50% efficiency in 20 years. Solar energy is a meme. It will cost more to continuously replace solar panels than it will save us, while causing a huge trash and recycling problem, since not everyone will properly dispose of their old panels. https://www.google.com/amp/sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/08/18/birds-bursting-into-flames-above-solar-farm-stirs-calls-to-slow-expansion-streamer-solar-field-central-valley-heat-streamer-fire-burn/amp/?client=ms-android-sprint-us Panels catch birds on fire http://www.grandforksherald.com/news/region/3805700-study-finds-north-dakota-birds-displaced-wind-turbines Wind displaces wildlife Skepticalscience is shit https://www.masterresource.org/debate-issues/skeptical-science-website/ An actual physicist shits on the site as being anti-science http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html?m=1 Loads of inconsistencies and lies and falsehoods with censoring and deleting and ignoring debunking. SkS is a political machine, not a science 97% myth. Skepticalscience reports 97% Cook study is truthful http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/cooking-stove-use-housing-associations-white-males-and-the-97 Analysis of the study by an expert in the field discovers massive bias and cooking of results while also cherrypicking datapoints and refusing a double-blind study in order to shame scientists who may have had doubts http://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=495104001002067116001071068020118081101069081061084031018005019028083093002113085101000003027026054116046003011029118029031089107048048080009069023114097081083005008051035087103119119118000099100071015126127127090124125012074119020087108098082119101022&EXT=pdf 95% myth https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/28/cooks-97-climate-consensus-paper-crumbles-upon-examination/ No one has any idea if the polar bear populations are dying. They believe they are and they say they have logic behind it, but previous unofficial citations are the best we had pre-70's and, using those, it would seem that the population is growing. The reality? We have no idea what's happening. We just assume and believe. http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/about-polar-bears/what-scientists-say/are-polar-bear-populations-booming Al Gore and a Navy climate science expert said sea ice would be nonexistent in 2013, those failed so Navy scientist published a new and widely cited study that predicted that 2016 would have little to no ice whatsoever http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/18941-arctic-sea-ice-and-al-gores-prediction-2013 [/spoiler]

Do you know what a 'gish gallop' is?

Yeah, but I'm not trying to argue as much as I am trying to show you that the entire dissenting community has been silenced and that you should be skeptical and inquire as to "Why?" I could do point by point but that was meant to show you some of the stuff which you should look into

It's not that the dissenting community has been silenced, it's that they are only 3% of the scientific community. You could put it this way; on balance it's far more likely that our carbon emissions are contributing significantly to the current climate change. Since it's far more likely than not, we have to cut emissions. The stakes are too high to not do it. Anyone saying it is a hoax or just not a problem is taking a huge risk on just a small amount of doubt.