why is it some of you that when someone takes a dif angle or approach instead of the way you do, you instantly assume they totally disagree with you or are some inbred toothless wonder who eats tv dinners who has no understanding of anything?
uh because in the case of climate change deniers, the "dif angle or approach" you speak of is essentially "what if science isn't real? ever think of that, 97% of climate experts who agree that people are causing global warming?"
this is kind of easy. are there not people who are capiltalizing on climate change and pocketing large sums of money and have no real motive to find any solutions?
i didn't know you had to have "a real motive to find solutions" in order for your work to be real, actual science. i mean really are you saying that it doesn't count if it isn't solution oriented? this is some kind of weird straw man and shift of the goal posts because literally no one is saying that there isn't money in research, AND science doesn't have to be solution oriented. when a scientist says "hey there's an asteroid out there with a 35% chance of hitting earth and causing a mass extinction event in 25 years" he's not really offering any solutions so idk does this count as science?