because why fix the event hall lag or a plethora of other problems when you can tackle on the ever more pressing issue of grade school twerps showing off how many naughty words they know?
Deathmobs is absolutely right saying science follows the money. That's not to say that you can never trust it at all but there was a very famous example recently where it was revealed that the sugar industry paid off Harvard scientists to make the claim that fat, not sugar is bad for you when in reality it's the other way around. People believed it because science says it; that means it must be true. For a long time now scientists have had a sort of intellectual authority and much like religion was in the middle ages, it's almost seen as heretical to question it. Except nowadays we call people who question science and scientists as anti science or conspiracy theorists - modern day version of heresy. Also a big part of the scientific method is to question and that includes questioning our own common sense or what we believe to be common knowledge such as anthropomorphic climate change that everyone assumes as fact because we have been told it was so our whole lives. I don't remember ever being taught, until this university class I'm in right now which coincidentally enough environmentalism is an upcoming topic, but I've never been taught the other side of the argument, never taught the merits of fossil fuel or legitimate questions against climate change. You probably haven't either. And the reason people automatically assume anthropomorphic climate change is real and defend it so much is not that they know it to be true, but they perceive it to be true because it is the only reality they know of. Curious thing about the human mind is that once an idea has entered our thoughts, especially since youth, we tend to defend it. It's why for the most part, people do not change their religion. Environmentalism is an ideology, and just like every other ideology it relies on accepting certain things to be true that you cannot question and then following the logic of said accepted truths. Skepticism is completely in line with science. I would argue being unskeptical is unscientific.
Frankly I don't care about the science behind it. But let's assume it is true that anthropomorphic climate change really is occurring. So what are we going to do about it then? Because everything we use, everything we built is brought about by fossil fuel. Unless you want to live an Amish lifestyle we need energy to power our machines. Not only do we need a lot of energy but it needs to be produced cheaply in order that it may economically viable. And so far fossil fuels is the only way we can do that. Nuclear is a good option too. Nuclear is actually cleaner than solar when you look at their energy produced compared to how much toxic waste it produces. The point is that even if it is true that climate change is real and we are making a big affect on it, the benefits we get from fossil fuel outweigh the potential bad we could face.
I wouldn't listen to anything Al Gore says, he is just as much of a clown as Jim Inhofe. He said 10 years ago that there would be no more ice caps in 10 years. Well it's been 10 years and we still got em. I've seen people argue that there's less now, I've seen people argue there are more ice caps now, I'm not going to argue on that.
Humans have not overcrowded the Earth. You could put everyone in the state of Texas and give each family a house to live in. We have enough space.
Good videos by Prager U. Here's an actual atmospheric physicist explaining the reality of the debate and not some nameless youtuber. None of these people have been paid off by oil companies.
And here's Patrick Moore, PhD in ecology and cofounder of Greenpeace
Another video by Alex Epstein disproving the whole 97% of scientist claim you mentioned in my mess of a thread. I'm actually have his book but haven't read it yet. Source by David Henderson in the video http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2014/02/david_friedman_14.html
I'm not arguing whether anthropomorphic climate change is true, I'm saying even if it is true, we get so much out of the fossil fuels that it is worth it. You can make all the environmental catastrophe predictions you want but the statistics show that humans, ever since the industrial revolution, have died less from starvation and weather. Sure we still get problems with droughts and hurricanes and flooding and none of that is ever going to go away, though you can make the argument it could become more common but the stats don't show that either. Environmental problems were deadlier in the past without energy to deliver people and supplies quickly in order that it doesn't cause it to lose more lives. Now that we have the energy from fossil fuels to deliver people and supplies quickly, sure hurricane Matthew is still a scary thought and it has killed many people mostly in Haiti, but imagine how many more people would have died if there was no fossil fuels.
Don't worry, once the try hard edgy tweens realize nobody gives a flying pickle if they swear they'll stop. Or they'll just keep giving money to nexon. Hey, it helps keep the game running, go for it. JUST DO IT. DON'T LET YOUR SMEGAS BE DREAMS
