nick wrote
Keira WitherKay wrote
i heard a talk on 702 yesterday about how people worldwide need to start conditioning/ allowing their bodies to get used to higher temperatures.....as heat waves are increasing and the average temperatures on the planet are climbing ....... thanks to the global warming ......
Wasnt this largely proved as a massive lie? I read an article where the people submitting the temperature data admitted to falsifying it.
NO. It wasn't. It wasn't at all. No. No. Also no.
The massive industries that are hugely invested in guarding their short term profits by denying the scientific consensus on climate change, were quick to jump on some internal emails in which a few climate scientists were talking among themselves about the best way to sell the message - even suggesting underhanded methods of doing so.
However, their dodgy discussion about their particular approach to selling the message had no bearing at all on the overwhelming evidence, and scientific consensus on the global warming threat - opposed only by heavily, heavily interested parties who try to paint the mainstream scientists as being as invested as they are (they aren't. Most are university academics who earn their sub-standard salaries independent of whether global warming happens or not - unlike their opponents who face enormous short-term losses).
Climate change is real. Just like, in 1969, human being landed a craft on the moon and people walked upon it. Moon landing denialists are considered freaks for attacking the mountain of counter evidence and consensus of scientists. This is because there is no money in moon landing denialism.
There is a
huge amount of money in climate science denialism. They also have enormous amounts to invest in propaganda. The mainstream (read: moon landing accepters) climate scientists, do not have the money to expose the denialists' dodgy internal emails every time they come up. And believe me, there are a lot of those.
This is not something that people should leave passively to be answered by those with the most incentive - i.e.: industry shills, a great many of whom are kept permanently on payrolls to invent any kak they feel like to discredit legitimate climate scientists.
Edit: The media is also highly guilty of giving this stuff credence. They love a controversy - even if the controversy is between united experts in a field, and propagandists hired by industry. They play a game of being "balanced" that would be a lot like describing the "controversy" around procreation, by following an academic gynaecologist's description of the "sex-theory" of procreation by always having a counter-statement from a 7 year old "stork-theorist." It's a fun game to sell newspapers, but in the end, people will get hurt.
