Regardless, the person or group that could prove the whole thing a farce would be (are?) silenced thru ridicule or threats. Their lives would be (are?) ruined for speaking against those who are so deeply invested in the premise. If someone were to eventually prove it all false and bring the world into agreement, they sure as hell wouldnt be getting a Nobel prize from the United Nations, who is beating one of the biggest drums in the climate change parade. Even if they were absolutely correct they would still be condemned and threatened by every clean activist in the world for some completely illogical argument, like proclaiming they were encouraging the world to polute. All in all its far less risky to just shut up than to go against the grain, something that the left in general counts on.
They are wholly invested. They cannot deviate from the path they have started down even if it's all proven to be a farce without personal and financial ruin. They have too fully coupled their own existence to the premise (as no pure scientist would) to turn back now.
"The underlying physical reality that science studies doesn't give a damn about money."
The fact that you don't think money plays a significant role in most science shows your ignorance.
In the case of climate change, there are careers hanging entirely in the balance. If there is no justification to continue to press the man made effects on climate change, there are entire businesses and organizations that will cease to exist, because their government or donated funding will evaporate. The IPCC itself is one such organization. Not to mention that there are so many people who have so heavily invested their reputation in this that if they were to be proved even mostly wrong their credibility as a scientist would be deeply wounded for life.
And it's true for many sciences. Medicine, physics, chemistry.... those people who show the most promise to create (or help further) sellable and profitable product are the ones who get the money to continue their research. For the most part there isn't investment in research if there isn't a tangible payout to be gained. And environmentalists are no different, except that in the most altruistic cases their ultimate goal would be to make themselves irrelevant by making the world absolutely perfectly eco-friendly. (Which will never happen, unless you'd like to propose hostile takeover of countries like Russia, China, most of Asia, and an appreciable portion of the middle-east, so that you can force eco-law on them.)
So you don't think the fossil fuel industry lining their pockets with an order of magnitude more money is suspicious too?
No, I don't. That's industry. That's business. They extract a product, to sell a product, to make money on the product. There's no deception and there's no hidden agenda. Now if you mean, do I think they will lie to protect that business? Yes, I do. But I also know they are not a wolf in sheep's clothing. They are wolves and they make no apologies for it. Everyone knows precisely what motivates them.
But when you have people that proclaim that their sole motivation is the protection of the planet, and they push so hard for these systems that will save lives (because after all, we must think of the children), and those same systems just happen to make their creators grossly rich...
From the article "Ugly to compare tea party with terrorists"
The opening paragraph of the article
The cycle of incitement continued this week as Democrats frustrated with the debt-ceiling deal equated the tea party with terrorists, just weeks before the 10th anniversary of 9/11.
But that's from one of those whacko conservative blogs.
Oh, wait. It's from CNN.
Sadly all these people are hoping for in their "revolution" is the enforcement of the existing Constitution.
I'd be a hell of a lot less suspicious of the entire green movement if some of the most vocal proponents weren't lining their pockets with a LOT of money by doing so.
Yeah! The motto of the UN and any world leaders should be "Hope for the best and prepare only for the best!" Because planning for the worst-case scenario is just ASKING for trouble. Who are these people with their negative thinking about the worlds food supply? Why, that's downright irresponsible to be pessimistic like that, according to "The Secret."
And yet when a family has firearms, they are unstable whacko nutjob conspiracy theorists...
I really don't know what it is about a site aiming for rational discourse with an (actual) scientific basis that draws them out.
You're essentially suggesting that