There is no "good science" any more since Science is a business as everything else.
It probably used to be different a few decades or a century back but nowadays statistics are abused to show what you wanna show which isn't necessarily an image of the objective reality.
The thing is one scientist or one scientist lab in itself means nothing, all he creates must be taken cautiously. The thing that makes science reliable is the debate inside of the scientific community. Is the result replicable? Can another team disprof what has been said? Is everything stated agreed by everyone inside the community (or by most of it)?
The problem is that general media don't wait for the scientific debate to take place. As soon as some results are published, they will go "science say that". But that is not the truth, it should more be like "this lab is saying that. We will see in some years if the scientific community agrees on this".
...that said, I and a lots of people in the scientific community agree that there's a drop in the quality of scientific production. Lots of publishing just to have citations and credits but not enough time spend on each research.
....and we know for sure that methane is more than one order of magnitude more powerful than CO2. The only reasonable thing to do on a human scale to stop global warming and be more healthy is to stop or severely reduce meat consumption.
Do people really think that scientists working for educational institutions have more of a financial agenda than corporations making trillions from their ravaging of the planet?
Couldn't say those better.
Are people that fucking retarded to think that only a little over 200 years of heavy industry is having a massive impact in a system as big as our planet?
You know about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion right?
Maybe some people tend to be too dramatic about it, but climate change is real. Even if climate change have occurred before humans were there, the effects were dramatic, Glacial age were not fun time for living creatures. To what degree human are affecting it is still in debate but there's quite a lot of proof that we do have an effect and reducing it can only make things better.
If there is one thing that pisses me off it's the preserve the rainforest bullshit, Eurasians wiped out the vast majority of their forests and built shit there, then go off crying how the people in Brazil shouldn't be allowed to do the same, if you want forests, go get rid of some of your cities or farms and plant shit there.
What if we just wanted to avoid that they do the same mistake? Plus the situation is quite different as they have way more wildlife diversity as we never had and that they have a tropical soil which after some years without tropical forest becomes infertile. So in one generation the destruction of the forest will have been useless.
Scientists also have their own agendas. If they come up with something 'relevant' that will spark a lot of attention and is to do with the current issue then they will likely get more funding, advance their own career ect.
So just because scientists agree, doesn't mean they aren't bullshitting or stretching the truth to some extent to suit their own needs in life.
Destroying other scientist theories also bring lot of fame and reward for scientists too, if some scientists could have debunked the global warning they would already have done it. And I don't think governement are spending so much money to make everything greener if some scientist could provide them proof global warming is a hoax.
