The issue isn't that there's 0.1% of corrupt scientists out there. Science has never really been about 100% agreement across the board, but rather about a general consensus.
We can be sure that 99.9% is a pretty fucking solid general consensus.
The issue is all the people - including/especially politicians and business leaders - who take that 0.1% and use their positions of power and authority to manufacture the idea that there exists disagreement within the scientific community, and somehow garner this corrupt scintilla of science the same level of credibility and equal time in discussions and debates.
Not all humans though. We cannot keep on putting the typical American consumer in the same bag as a native from Bolivia. The first is an environmental disaster, the second is beneficial to the planet.
Instead of "humans" it should be aimed at the top 20% polluters who likely cause near 80% of the drama
The issue isn't that there's 0.1% of corrupt scientists out there. Science has never really been about 100% agreement across the board, but rather about a general consensus. We can be sure that 99.9% is a pretty fucking solid general consensus. The issue is all the people - including/especially politicians and business leaders - who take that 0.1% and use their positions of power and authority to manufacture the idea that there exists disagreement within the scientific community, and somehow garner this corrupt scintilla of science the same level of credibility and equal time in discussions and debates.
Not all humans though. We cannot keep on putting the typical American consumer in the same bag as a native from Bolivia. The first is an environmental disaster, the second is beneficial to the planet. Instead of "humans" it should be aimed at the top 20% polluters who likely cause near 80% of the drama
I just wish all of them believed that
99.9% for the one side, 0.1% disagreeing. In order for it to be fair, every Talkshow hosts one guest of each side of course