How are a bunch of predictions from one or two random scientists from several decades ago comparable to the overwhelming scientific consensus as of 2019?To make the picture whole, it would be helpful to look at those scientists who objected the anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) cause of global warming. Or rather, to check which ones of them got any single dollar in grants/financing from governments and/or government-related entities.
In this world, to make conclusions which contradict the establishment narrative and prevent it from taxing more and controlling other people, means to live a rather miserable life...
P.S. And if you are sincerely interested in the subject from all sides, rather than in following the narrative, it is curious to look at previous scientific attempts to sell fear with climate apocalypse predictions and how they eventually panned out... For instance, there are some curious links in this article:
And tbh when one of those sides' only claim to relevance these days is opposing liberalism in just about every aspect (even if that means denying science, trying to sabotage attempts at preventing future global catastrophes and attacking 16-year-old autistic girls) then, quite honestly, expecting anyone to care about what they have to say is just not realistic.
But you know, the more toxic they are, the more pronounced their generational extinction is becoming. So keep at it. :SNE: