On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 08:05:32 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2018-06-04 20:45, Bill W wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jun 2018 15:30:39 -0700, Savageduck

Why does that article have the appearance of total BS?

Probably for the same reason that all of the climate change crap looks
like total BS to people like me - total skeptics.

There are very many highly intelligent people out there who disagree
on this subject, and an awful lot of what is published, and what you

Most subject matter experts agree at large the AGW is real,

Okay...

serious

Maybe...

and
dangerous.

I doubt that.

The "skeptics" usually have commercial interests at "heart".

Usually? That's a bit mushy.

But, hey, the IPCC report compiled by scientists from around the world
from a wide range of expertise groups can't mean much, right?

The report and summary are two different things, and it's the
corrupted summaries that are fed to the squirming masses.

And radio talk show hosts must know more, right?

Serious people don't listen to that stuff.

reliably see on the MSM is quite disingenuous.

There is no truth on this subject, just opinions, and wild guesses.

No. There is hard science that's been accumulating and refining over
many decades.

Yes, that's true. The problem is how that data and research are used.
Once any issue has been politicized, it becomes nothing more than a
fight between true believers of their side. If you won't admit that
there are smart people on both sides, both with plausible conclusions,
then you have stopped being a thinking person, and have become an
activist, nothing more.

The basic thing is you can't keep spewing massive amounts of pollution
and expecting there to be no effect.

Sure, but there is no truth at this time regarding what that effect
will be. And the US is not spewing those massive amounts. The problem
needs to be addressed elsewhere.