Because they get to vote. They're the reason that we've not done anything yet. They're the reason that this has been the worst congress in the history of America.
"Has anyone ever said that?"
Surely. Deniers. Then they go on to complain about it.
One does wonder what goes on in their heads.
Sure would be nice if there was a sanity test for voting.
Beats me. What is CO2 science? We have understood that the greenhouse effect warms the Earth since the 19th century, and that CO2 is one of the main greenhouse gases, but we are still learning more about CO2's role in climate change. Though we learn more through research, after a large number of observations from many independent investigations confirm the same theory, it is usually considered settled until new evidence is found. And, there is no new evidence in contradiction to greenhouse gas theory or CO2's role. A large number of Skeptics chanting 'It just ain't so.", does not qualify as evidence.
Someone did say that. Ottawa Maxx said that.
http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind...
When you, I and other point on that there has been over 100 years of science, that doesn't mean that people knew everything then. If people understood what is known now, Knut ?ngstr?m would not have shut down most of the research for 50 years, and we would have had inputs from such scientists as Albert Einstein and Neils Bohr.
It's a little like the creationists who say "Well, Darwin was wrong about X, so evolution is obviously false."
Most denialists, and the more politically motivated skeptics (or "skeptics"), have trouble understanding the distinction between "Scientists had figured out the general outlines of this thing at this time" or "Scientists were starting to get an inkling about this at this time" and "Scientists completely understood this thing at this time". Or, at least, they pretend to.
Be sure someone has, but. Does that make it true.
why get upset with village idiots?
Here http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20131215093208AACsEbn
is is purported that
"WE" "are told often (e.g. Hey Dook) that we have known for over a hundred years that CO2 is the main driver of the climate."
Or so claims YA's calm rationale skeptic critic of fossil fuel companies 1990s' statements about climate science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition
Did I ever claim "CO2 science has been settled since Fourier and Arrhenius."?
WHERE?
Here?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20131215015122AAoGSmY
"Bonafide skeptical scientists understood a hundred years ago already the difference between annual or decadal changes and long term century or millennium changes in temperature and weather/climate patterns. The mountain range of science done since then http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm has eliminated scientific skepticism about the basic mechanisms of AGW (there are tons of skepticism about details)."
How does "science done SINCE then" = "science has been settled since" then?
Or how does
"The difference between annual or decadal changes and long term century or millennium changes in temperature and weather/climate patterns" = "CO2 is the main driver of the climate"?
Does pathological lying hinder reading ability?
Or does it just make liars tell stupider lies?
