There has been a lot of CW discussion on climate change. This is an article written by someone that used to strongly believe in anthropogenic global warming and then looked at all the evidence before arriving at a different conclusion. The articles goes through what they did.
I thought a top-level submission would be more interesting as climate change is such a hot button topic and it would be good to have a top-level spot to discuss it for now. I have informed the author of this submission; they said they will drop by and engage with the comments here!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Not sure why you assume that scientists cannot ever be hilariously wrong, make stupid mistakes, engaging in harmful conspiracies, troll or be insane cranks. Also in their own field.
It is especially confusing given that you are claiming that massive number of scientists do at least one of this things or similar.
Mix of conspiracy theory about scientists engaging in conspiracy AND appealing to authority of scientists is weird. Can you decide on doing one of these?
"two scientists published paper about X" is not as strong argument as you think it is. Have you heard about replication crisis?
Well it appears my strategy worked. The critique went from "reasonably-easy misunderstanding to make" for someone "without the proper grounding" to: scientists can still be wrong. Mission accomplished.
"scientists can still be wrong" was obvious at start, you still failed to make convincing case about literally anything here.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link