What you've been suggesting would absolutely require a conspiracy of scientists related to climatology from all over the world - not even just America. ... just the facts, not a rant. You need to explain how this conspiracy would work - where it gets its power, who controls it, why scientists from all over the world would follow, etc?
Al Gore would be an example of an alarmist. He rarely uses science and when he does he cherry picks it and then takes it out of context and misrepresents it.
Yes, I think Gore made a serious misjudgement. He somehow believed that raising the attention of a sleeping America required injecting some of the worst case scenarios. The catch is, worst case scenarios are what scientists think WON'T happen. Everything scientists think could possibly happen is BELOW the worst case. It's the very idea of a worst case. Unfortunately, we've had very few communicators who can do a better job of describing the situation to a general public audience. We used to have Carl Sagan. Now, we have Nell deGrasse Tyson. He's a great physicist and an outstanding listen, but he really doesn't have enough patience for deniers to actually try woo them along toward the light. The next catch is that people don't forget what Gore said, or what they think he said. So, they disbelieve anything and everything he says. I think he's improved, and he IS a smart guy, but he's never going to live that down. In the end, Al Gore is NOT a SCIENTIST. So, if he's wrong it's really pretty much irrelevant. In NO way does it mean the science is wrong.
Fortunately, I'm not alone in my assessment. So many others have come to the same conclusion. That so many are so willing to fall for the scheme hatched by the nice folks at Goldman Sachs, well, you're willing, it seems. I suppose that one either purposefully ignores the process or they believe in it's efficacy, or the are simply uncaring that it is happening. I won't ascribe your motivations, but the result isn't "the cheapest source of power we have". In reality, it becomes the hammer that stifles sufficient economic output to support the weight of our ever growing population, or ensuring that those who are a part of it have sustainable and meaningful comfort in their lives. I characterize that as amazingly pejorative, and frankly cruel.
Actively being ignorant of the history of fully documented inter-agency collusion as demonstrated by the email from East Anglia is of course expected of members of the faith. I'm reminded of the revival participants of the Roy Moore show yesterday...
Every industrialized nation taxes transportation fuel at a far higher rate than does the US, and that has been the case for a very long time. In some, the taxes can be more than the cost of the fuel! Yet, you think it came from Goldman Sachs and would cause us economic damage. And, yes, conservation is sill the cheapest source. Building with better insulation, for example, saves on energy over the lifetime of the structure. Otherwise, it would be necessary to increase energy production to cover that. Corporations that reuse the heat they produce save on energy bills while reducing the need for new production. etc. These savings can add comfort. Buildings including homes built to conserve are less prone to hot and cold spots, more powerful and obtrusive heating and cooling machinery, etc.
Oh, good LORD! 1. Eight committees investigated that "scandal" and found nothing. 2. One such event, even if there was any truth to it, can not possibly coerce scientists the world over to toe some line. 3. A conspiracy of the require size is just plain impossible. If you don't believe so, you need to cite evidence. The sheer numbers of scientists and scientific organizations spread the world over that would need to be corrupted is only one aspect of this. Another is that the science depends on sources that are far too diverse to coordinate. There is work on understanding of our planet from probes in space, upper and lower atmosphere, surface and at various ocean depths. No central planning unit could possibly coordinate the findings of these diverse groups in a way that would support a consistent but untruthful result. There will always be outliers. But, the vast majority of scientists working on this issue are of one mind about the fundamental that earth is warming and the cause is predominantly human in origin.
