Denying any hypothesis that doesn't have solid proof is not unhealthy. Climate change is dynamic and always has been. That's not what people don't believe. The public has been told that the coasts would flood by 2015. Damn if it didn't happen. The climate computer algorithms were wrong. They still are. So, like Dubya Bush said "fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.”
It doesn't help that any group or person who tries to argue against the hypothesis (which is what scientists should be doing, right?), is ostracized and ridiculed.
I consider myself a common sense environmentalist, and I'm not ready to accept the current popular narrative on climate change. Saying is these forest fires are a result of climate change and ignoring good forestry practices is absurd for instance.
The public has been told that the coasts would flood by 2015.
That's a stupid statement with no details. Some coasts have flooded, some haven't. Provide a source.
If some corporate shill says scientists said certain things would flood in 2015, and the public is stupid enough to believe him, it actually doesn't discredit the scientists.
(post is archived)