[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Exactly. You CHOOSE to believe the particular side of the debate based on the information fed to you. You CHOOSE to ignore or disbelieve the other side of the debate (mostly, because of the way it gets presented in social and mass-media). So, your conviction (position) is based on a pure belief in one side being right, not on any meaningful understanding of the issue. Politicians need these beliefs of general public to get more public support of their agenda.

Science should have nothing to do with beliefs. A lot of current climate change science is not based on fact, but on hypothesis supported by observational, archaeological and statistical factual evidence of changes to temperatures, weather events and oceanic levels, some of which could be attributed to human activities. It may be right, or part-right, or a small part-right, or wrong. There is plenty of proof contradicting this hypothesis; however. Scientists should be making their hypothesis and other scientists should be able to challenge them freely and without fear of repercussions. The debate must continue.

The simple reason - mostly justified but sometimes not - that “skeptics” are vilified is that most of the scientific doubt surrounding this issue has been produced in bad faith. As, I would argue, you are doing in this thread. If you could produce some links or facts for us...

The root cause of the backlash against scientists isn’t the angry mob itself, it’s the disingenuous effort put forth by industry to steer policy debates.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlo...was-debatable/

Documents uncovered by journalists and activists over the past decade lay out a clear strategy: First, target media outlets to get them to report more on the “uncertainties” in climate science, and position industry-backed contrarian scientists as expert sources for media. Second, target conservatives with the message that climate change is a liberal hoax, and paint anyone who takes the issue seriously as “out of touch with reality.” In the 1990s, oil companies, fossil fuel industry trade groups and their respective PR firms began positioning contrarian scientists such as Willie Soon, William Happer and David Legates as experts whose opinions on climate change should be considered equal and opposite to that of climate scientists. The Heartland Institute, which hosts an annual International Conference on Climate Change known as the leading climate skeptics conference, for example, routinely calls out media outlets (including The Washington Post) for showing “bias” in covering climate change when they either decline to quote a skeptic or question a skeptic’s credibility.