BS. The govt should subsidise them so they can sell it cheaper. You don't get people to buy more expensive shit just because Al Gore says so. Plus, it is also a great marketing tolol for companies so it would be a good idea to make the products as cheap as the regular ones. They don't do that. Why? Cuz they are playing on your guilt or whatever and charging more.Varegg wrote:
Because the production costs are higher until more and more people buys it?11 Bravo wrote:
If the govt tells me that there is global warming, then there is no global warming.
If you want me to help the enviro, why do you allow everyone to sell green stuff or recycled stuff at a higher cost than the regular products? scam thats why. flim flam.
It is a scam. Recycling is a colossal waste of energy, time and money. According to the NYslimes Britons are beginning to wake up. It is about time too...11 Bravo wrote:
If the govt tells me that there is global warming, then there is no global warming.
If you want me to help the enviro, why do you allow everyone to sell green stuff or recycled stuff at a higher cost than the regular products? scam thats why. flim flam.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Ai ai ai aiDBBrinson1 wrote:
It is a scam. Recycling is a colossal waste of energy, time and money. According to the NYslimes Britons are beginning to wake up. It is about time too...
No fucking no. No more goddamn subsidies.11 Bravo wrote:
BS. The govt should subsidise them so they can sell it cheaper. You don't get people to buy more expensive shit just because Al Gore says so. Plus, it is also a great marketing tolol for companies so it would be a good idea to make the products as cheap as the regular ones. They don't do that. Why? Cuz they are playing on your guilt or whatever and charging more.Varegg wrote:
Because the production costs are higher until more and more people buys it?11 Bravo wrote:
If the govt tells me that there is global warming, then there is no global warming.
If you want me to help the enviro, why do you allow everyone to sell green stuff or recycled stuff at a higher cost than the regular products? scam thats why. flim flam.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Subsidies created recycling of paper/plastic productsJohnG@lt wrote:
No fucking no. No more goddamn subsidies.11 Bravo wrote:
BS. The govt should subsidise them so they can sell it cheaper. You don't get people to buy more expensive shit just because Al Gore says so. Plus, it is also a great marketing tolol for companies so it would be a good idea to make the products as cheap as the regular ones. They don't do that. Why? Cuz they are playing on your guilt or whatever and charging more.Varegg wrote:
Because the production costs are higher until more and more people buys it?
The veggies I buy have decreased in price because they now sell more than ever ... earlier the price difference was huge because it was exspensive to produce such a small amount of veggies ... most foods have had this development ... toilet paper and newspapers made of recycled paper doesn't cost more than the normal products ... bicycles made of recycled metal doesn't cost more ...11 Bravo wrote:
BS. The govt should subsidise them so they can sell it cheaper. You don't get people to buy more expensive shit just because Al Gore says so. Plus, it is also a great marketing tolol for companies so it would be a good idea to make the products as cheap as the regular ones. They don't do that. Why? Cuz they are playing on your guilt or whatever and charging more.Varegg wrote:
Because the production costs are higher until more and more people buys it?11 Bravo wrote:
If the govt tells me that there is global warming, then there is no global warming.
If you want me to help the enviro, why do you allow everyone to sell green stuff or recycled stuff at a higher cost than the regular products? scam thats why. flim flam.
What other products are you thinking of?
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
But they aren't saying any of that, you are. There is no mention of carbon credits or creating a commodities market in the letter. You are the one putting that argument forth for them, very stylistic of lowing. Where is the propaganda? The science and studies aren't being supressed, yet you and others have this knee-jerk reaction regarding the implementation of carbon tax credits. So I guess you personally don't really question the science behind it, only the proposed solutions? Or maybe you don't understand the science and choose to follow a CNN pundits position from a youtube video?Diesel_dyk wrote:
The article has nothing we haven't heard before. it basically says, "we've been saying this for a while, we've managed to convince a lot of people to believe this, so it should be accepted as fact... why won't you accept it as fact... what's wrong with you.... you are killing the earth... we should tax you out of your hummer and make you cry when you pay your electric bill."
Its just a cry to rally the enviro base. I expect more propaganda as the we approach the fight on cap and trade.
Here's a video apparently not everyone agrees with the models and the mathematics.
I personally don't like cap and trade any more than I like the trading of bundled loans or oil or gold - I hate commodities trading with a passion, even more so when it's a made-up commodity like clean energy credit. But that isn't the issue.
@DDBrinson - there is no mention of recycling in the article or this debate. I guess I could look for a youtube link that succintly sums up the arguments but I can't be bothered to look for it.
@11 bravo - you bring up an interesting and valid point - the American government has a history of subsidizing energy exploration and refinement of all kinds, including oil exploration and offshore drilling. I'm not really sure if the balance is tipping in favor of alternative/green forms of energy but sure, as long as subsidies flow to oil, coal and other forms of fossil fuels it's going to hurt the ability for new forms to break into the market. Appealing to the consumer's emotions is only going to get green tech so far.
not in 'merica. need a loan to shop at whole foods for example.Varegg wrote:
The veggies I buy have decreased in price because they now sell more than ever ... earlier the price difference was huge because it was exspensive to produce such a small amount of veggies ... most foods have had this development ... toilet paper and newspapers made of recycled paper doesn't cost more than the normal products ... bicycles made of recycled metal doesn't cost more ...11 Bravo wrote:
BS. The govt should subsidise them so they can sell it cheaper. You don't get people to buy more expensive shit just because Al Gore says so. Plus, it is also a great marketing tolol for companies so it would be a good idea to make the products as cheap as the regular ones. They don't do that. Why? Cuz they are playing on your guilt or whatever and charging more.Varegg wrote:
Because the production costs are higher until more and more people buys it?
What other products are you thinking of?
I guess that depends on where you are shopping--11 Bravo wrote:
not in 'merica. need a loan to shop at whole foods for example.
At my local supermarket, I can get organic carrots for ~$0.40 more per pound, celery is the same price, apples are ~$0.20 more per pound, lettuce is under a $1 extra per pound, bananas are $0.30 more, etc... That's really not too bad, but then, I'm not shopping at a specialty store that caters to vegans with too much money.
Of course, I still don't pay the extra fee for organic food...but if I wanted to it really wouldn't break the bank for the food that I like in the quantities that I eat.
The nature of global warming doesn't warrant itself to the scientific method making any sort of conclusions, even hard theories. The difference between the theory of global warming and the other physical theories listed are the physical theories are easily verifiable in a controlled circumstance - global warming is the antithesis of such theories. We can measure trends yes by gathering historical data through ice-caps and measure the earth warming up, but we have no way of testing what is causing the changes because there is no possible way to make a controlled experiment. Correlation does not imply causation.
Can putting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases/pollutants into the atmosphere be a good thing? In all likelihood no. Should we work to reduce these outputs? Sure. Are there any real scientists that compare the theory of global warming (significant artificial warming of the earth) to the theory of relativity, and then juxtapose that with the theory of evolution. Hell no.
How you can say you don't understand the science involved and that to disprove it someone would have to demonstrate a certain level of competency but still give the global warming side of the argument a free pass when it comes a burden of proof is amusingly hypocritical.
Can putting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases/pollutants into the atmosphere be a good thing? In all likelihood no. Should we work to reduce these outputs? Sure. Are there any real scientists that compare the theory of global warming (significant artificial warming of the earth) to the theory of relativity, and then juxtapose that with the theory of evolution. Hell no.
This logic goes both ways. In order to have a reasonably established opinion on the matter in the first place you have to understand the theories behind the fact that global warming exists in the first place.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I am of the opinion that in order to debunk, disprove and/or discredit scientists, the theories, and the science behind anthropogenic global warming you must demonstrate an understanding of the science and the procedures implemented in the experiments.
How you can say you don't understand the science involved and that to disprove it someone would have to demonstrate a certain level of competency but still give the global warming side of the argument a free pass when it comes a burden of proof is amusingly hypocritical.
i shoveled three inches of global warming off my drive way last night.
Where do I give anyone a free pass? Where do I quote the science or any 'proof' of global warming as fact in this thread? Where in the OP have I even stated one way or another what I think of the whole debate? I thought me admitting that I don't fully understand the science behind it clearly shows that I don't really know...I guess you are too overzealous in proving my hypocrisy that your critical comprehension skills took a nosedive. Sorry for your lossFlaming_Maniac wrote:
The nature of global warming doesn't warrant itself to the scientific method making any sort of conclusions, even hard theories. The difference between the theory of global warming and the other physical theories listed are the physical theories are easily verifiable in a controlled circumstance - global warming is the antithesis of such theories. We can measure trends yes by gathering historical data through ice-caps and measure the earth warming up, but we have no way of testing what is causing the changes because there is no possible way to make a controlled experiment. Correlation does not imply causation.
Can putting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases/pollutants into the atmosphere be a good thing? In all likelihood no. Should we work to reduce these outputs? Sure. Are there any real scientists that compare the theory of global warming (significant artificial warming of the earth) to the theory of relativity, and then juxtapose that with the theory of evolution. Hell no.This logic goes both ways. In order to have a reasonably established opinion on the matter in the first place you have to understand the theories behind the fact that global warming exists in the first place.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I am of the opinion that in order to debunk, disprove and/or discredit scientists, the theories, and the science behind anthropogenic global warming you must demonstrate an understanding of the science and the procedures implemented in the experiments.
How you can say you don't understand the science involved and that to disprove it someone would have to demonstrate a certain level of competency but still give the global warming side of the argument a free pass when it comes a burden of proof is amusingly hypocritical.
Certainly the argument works both ways. If you were to create a thread about a letter to the editors of a science mag by a scientific community at-large taking an opposite stance I would feel the same way.
"Can anyone here demonstrate an understanding of the science enough to put together a comprehensive argument against what these scientists are saying? "KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Where do I give anyone a free pass? Where do I quote the science or any 'proof' of global warming as fact in this thread? Where in the OP have I even stated one way or another what I think of the whole debate? I thought me admitting that I don't fully understand the science behind it clearly shows that I don't really know...I guess you are too overzealous in proving my hypocrisy that your critical comprehension skills took a nosedive. Sorry for your lossFlaming_Maniac wrote:
The nature of global warming doesn't warrant itself to the scientific method making any sort of conclusions, even hard theories. The difference between the theory of global warming and the other physical theories listed are the physical theories are easily verifiable in a controlled circumstance - global warming is the antithesis of such theories. We can measure trends yes by gathering historical data through ice-caps and measure the earth warming up, but we have no way of testing what is causing the changes because there is no possible way to make a controlled experiment. Correlation does not imply causation.
Can putting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases/pollutants into the atmosphere be a good thing? In all likelihood no. Should we work to reduce these outputs? Sure. Are there any real scientists that compare the theory of global warming (significant artificial warming of the earth) to the theory of relativity, and then juxtapose that with the theory of evolution. Hell no.This logic goes both ways. In order to have a reasonably established opinion on the matter in the first place you have to understand the theories behind the fact that global warming exists in the first place.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I am of the opinion that in order to debunk, disprove and/or discredit scientists, the theories, and the science behind anthropogenic global warming you must demonstrate an understanding of the science and the procedures implemented in the experiments.
How you can say you don't understand the science involved and that to disprove it someone would have to demonstrate a certain level of competency but still give the global warming side of the argument a free pass when it comes a burden of proof is amusingly hypocritical.
Certainly the argument works both ways. If you were to create a thread about a letter to the editors of a science mag by a scientific community at-large taking an opposite stance I would feel the same way.
But you didn't ask for an argument the other way, clearly implying the burden of proof lies on the refuters by default.
A burden of proof which led the most prominent scientists in their respected fields to fabricate data, ignore and skew yet more data, correspond on how to manipulate the data they were using leading to that whole nasty new tagline "hide the decline". Overnight "global warming" became "climate change". It is a crock of crap.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
No it didn't, no it isn't, and did you actually know any of the scientists? You know they are prominent how?DBBrinson1 wrote:
Overnight "global warming" became "climate change". It is a crock of crap.
...I didn't ask for an argument the other way because the letter isn't addressing the other side.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
"Can anyone here demonstrate an understanding of the science enough to put together a comprehensive argument against what these scientists are saying? "KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Where do I give anyone a free pass? Where do I quote the science or any 'proof' of global warming as fact in this thread? Where in the OP have I even stated one way or another what I think of the whole debate? I thought me admitting that I don't fully understand the science behind it clearly shows that I don't really know...I guess you are too overzealous in proving my hypocrisy that your critical comprehension skills took a nosedive. Sorry for your lossFlaming_Maniac wrote:
The nature of global warming doesn't warrant itself to the scientific method making any sort of conclusions, even hard theories. The difference between the theory of global warming and the other physical theories listed are the physical theories are easily verifiable in a controlled circumstance - global warming is the antithesis of such theories. We can measure trends yes by gathering historical data through ice-caps and measure the earth warming up, but we have no way of testing what is causing the changes because there is no possible way to make a controlled experiment. Correlation does not imply causation.
Can putting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases/pollutants into the atmosphere be a good thing? In all likelihood no. Should we work to reduce these outputs? Sure. Are there any real scientists that compare the theory of global warming (significant artificial warming of the earth) to the theory of relativity, and then juxtapose that with the theory of evolution. Hell no.
This logic goes both ways. In order to have a reasonably established opinion on the matter in the first place you have to understand the theories behind the fact that global warming exists in the first place.
How you can say you don't understand the science involved and that to disprove it someone would have to demonstrate a certain level of competency but still give the global warming side of the argument a free pass when it comes a burden of proof is amusingly hypocritical.
Certainly the argument works both ways. If you were to create a thread about a letter to the editors of a science mag by a scientific community at-large taking an opposite stance I would feel the same way.
But you didn't ask for an argument the other way, clearly implying the burden of proof lies on the refuters by default.
Reading comprehension FTWIf you were to create a thread about a letter to the editors of a science mag by a scientific community at-large taking an opposite stance I would feel the same way
I read what you said later. But you said that later.
You made the thread with the letter, and you took the side of the letter. If you disagreed with and/or were skeptical of the letter you would have stated your position as such. Instead you bolded several points of the letter, commented on them, and then threw down a gauntlet for a rebuttal. That is not even-handed skepticism.
You made the thread with the letter, and you took the side of the letter. If you disagreed with and/or were skeptical of the letter you would have stated your position as such. Instead you bolded several points of the letter, commented on them, and then threw down a gauntlet for a rebuttal. That is not even-handed skepticism.
But then again, you could make the same argument against the Big Bang, evolution, and various theories regarding black holes and other phenomena in the distant reaches of space.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The nature of global warming doesn't warrant itself to the scientific method making any sort of conclusions, even hard theories. The difference between the theory of global warming and the other physical theories listed are the physical theories are easily verifiable in a controlled circumstance - global warming is the antithesis of such theories. We can measure trends yes by gathering historical data through ice-caps and measure the earth warming up, but we have no way of testing what is causing the changes because there is no possible way to make a controlled experiment. Correlation does not imply causation.
None of those could be demonstrated through controlled experiments because of the time frame and/or scale involved.
Also, the same could be said for certain economic theories -- such as advocating pure capitalism as a solution to economic problems, since there has never truly been a pure capitalism before.
Last edited by Turquoise (2010-05-25 17:25:51)
We can start with Phil Jones.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
No it didn't, no it isn't, and did you actually know any of the scientists? You know they are prominent how?DBBrinson1 wrote:
Overnight "global warming" became "climate change". It is a crock of crap.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Yeah, which is why any scientist worth his salt talks about those theories as theories. They are theories that make a lot of sense, but particularly with respect to the degree that the theories function there is a lot we don't understand. From personal experience the professor in cosmology that I have talked about working under before made it very clear that the Big Bang theory was just a theory, a lot of evidence points towards it but we understand so little about how everything works that there could be many other explanations for the data we gather. We even had a long talk specifically about the theoretical nature of the theory of relativity, even though a lot of lay persons take it as "fact" it is still a theory that is continually being tested. One of the key aspects of a theory is that it predicts the outcome of future situations, and so far the theory of relativity has passed that test quite well. Even so, it is not infallible and many people in his field were constructing theories that were at odds with the theory to various degrees.Turquoise wrote:
But then again, you could make the same argument against the Big Bang, evolution, and various theories regarding black holes and other phenomena in the distant reaches of space.
None of those could be demonstrated through controlled experiments because of the time frame and/or scale involved.
Also, the same could be said for certain economic theories -- such as advocating pure capitalism as a solution to economic problems, since there has never truly been a pure capitalism before.
Global warming is nowhere near that level of acceptance in the scientific community. Yes the basic concept of the greenhouse effect makes a lot of sense, but the magnitude of its actual effect on the Earth and on top of that the effect of that effect on the Earth is really a shot in the dark.
Economic theories are a matter of social logic. Physical theories are the product of natural truth. The two are incomparable.
I sure as hell don't know who that is. Did you know who he was before, or do you just know that he was caught up in the scandal?DBBrinson1 wrote:
We can start with Phil Jones.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
No it didn't, no it isn't, and did you actually know any of the scientists? You know they are prominent how?DBBrinson1 wrote:
Overnight "global warming" became "climate change". It is a crock of crap.
Well, the theory of relativity has been revised considerably since Einstein's time, but I get what you mean.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Yeah, which is why any scientist worth his salt talks about those theories as theories. They are theories that make a lot of sense, but particularly with respect to the degree that the theories function there is a lot we don't understand. From personal experience the professor in cosmology that I have talked about working under before made it very clear that the Big Bang theory was just a theory, a lot of evidence points towards it but we understand so little about how everything works that there could be many other explanations for the data we gather. We even had a long talk specifically about the theoretical nature of the theory of relativity, even though a lot of lay persons take it as "fact" it is still a theory that is continually being tested. One of the key aspects of a theory is that it predicts the outcome of future situations, and so far the theory of relativity has passed that test quite well. Even so, it is not infallible and many people in his field were constructing theories that were at odds with the theory to various degrees.
It may not be as solidly grounded as evolution or the Big Bang, but there certainly is a very disingenuous movement coming from mostly the oil industry to discredit global warming. And global warming really is accepted by the majority of the scientific community.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Global warming is nowhere near that level of acceptance in the scientific community. Yes the basic concept of the greenhouse effect makes a lot of sense, but the magnitude of its actual effect on the Earth and on top of that the effect of that effect on the Earth is really a shot in the dark.
Ok, I'll give you that one.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Economic theories are a matter of social logic. Physical theories are the product of natural truth. The two are incomparable.
Theory of Relativity was actually proven recently. Einstein was 100% correct.Turquoise wrote:
Well, the theory of relativity has been revised considerably since Einstein's time, but I get what you mean.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Yeah, which is why any scientist worth his salt talks about those theories as theories. They are theories that make a lot of sense, but particularly with respect to the degree that the theories function there is a lot we don't understand. From personal experience the professor in cosmology that I have talked about working under before made it very clear that the Big Bang theory was just a theory, a lot of evidence points towards it but we understand so little about how everything works that there could be many other explanations for the data we gather. We even had a long talk specifically about the theoretical nature of the theory of relativity, even though a lot of lay persons take it as "fact" it is still a theory that is continually being tested. One of the key aspects of a theory is that it predicts the outcome of future situations, and so far the theory of relativity has passed that test quite well. Even so, it is not infallible and many people in his field were constructing theories that were at odds with the theory to various degrees.It may not be as solidly grounded as evolution or the Big Bang, but there certainly is a very disingenuous movement coming from mostly the oil industry to discredit global warming. And global warming really is accepted by the majority of the scientific community.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Global warming is nowhere near that level of acceptance in the scientific community. Yes the basic concept of the greenhouse effect makes a lot of sense, but the magnitude of its actual effect on the Earth and on top of that the effect of that effect on the Earth is really a shot in the dark.Ok, I'll give you that one.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Economic theories are a matter of social logic. Physical theories are the product of natural truth. The two are incomparable.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The nature of global warming doesn't warrant itself to the scientific method making any sort of conclusions, even hard theories.
Please not that this is not me advocating this stance as my own or an agreement, just that the letter explicitly lays out the conclusions that you say don't exist.But there is nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change:
(i) The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact.
(ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.
(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth's climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.
(iv) Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic.
(v) The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more.
So? Just because some people are doing it for less-than-pure motives doesn't mean they aren't right, especially when the other side lacks evidence as well.Turquoise wrote:
It may not be as solidly grounded as evolution or the Big Bang, but there certainly is a very disingenuous movement coming from mostly the oil industry to discredit global warming. And global warming really is accepted by the majority of the scientific community.
The majority of the scientific community does not support global warming and all the theories and outcry associated with it indiscriminately. Really I don't know anyone besides Al Gore that has personally gone nutzo with the concept. The fact is the models are rudimentary at best, and we really don't know what will happen. To say that most scientists accept the numbers politicians spew is ridiculous.
LOL is this a joke?JohnG@lt wrote:
Theory of Relativity was actually proven recently. Einstein was 100% correct.
So you just quoted a bunch of statements that have nothing to back them up? The burden of proof is on them to explain how exactly these "fundamental conclusions" were reached, not on me saying they're full of shit.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The nature of global warming doesn't warrant itself to the scientific method making any sort of conclusions, even hard theories.Please not that this is not me advocating this stance as my own or an agreement, just that the letter explicitly lays out the conclusions that you say don't exist.But there is nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change:
(i) The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact.
(ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.
(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth's climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.
(iv) Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic.
(v) The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more.
Are the models rudimentary at best? I honestly don't know but you seem to have some understanding...Flaming_Maniac wrote:
So? Just because some people are doing it for less-than-pure motives doesn't mean they aren't right, especially when the other side lacks evidence as well.Turquoise wrote:
It may not be as solidly grounded as evolution or the Big Bang, but there certainly is a very disingenuous movement coming from mostly the oil industry to discredit global warming. And global warming really is accepted by the majority of the scientific community.
The majority of the scientific community does not support global warming and all the theories and outcry associated with it indiscriminately. Really I don't know anyone besides Al Gore that has personally gone nutzo with the concept. The fact is the models are rudimentary at best, and we really don't know what will happen. To say that most scientists accept the numbers politicians spew is ridiculous.
Who is saying that most scientists accept the numbers politicians spew out? I didn't read that but I may have missed it.