Popularity doesn't equate into science Belly.

What it factors into is group knowledge and group experience, as well as hype and buying into a narrative that you're not studied on. (Unless a popular idea is something everyone shares in experience or in study/training). Climite science as a science is tested by observations and experiences. Without those, the data that's differing for a conspiracy can be coming from either side of the climate change debate.

What I find revealing though is the lack of transparency in climate science narratives. Max Green went to great lengths to tell me that the media coverage of climate change scares was nothing to take seriously because apparently it never happened. This is where experience either corrects or confirms the data being thrown around, so pay attention to that element. Ironically though another recent media headline in the last year or so said that climate scientists predict 12 years left until a drastic outcome.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-warming-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48964736

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/27082019/12-years-climate-change-explained-ipcc-science-solutions

These articles are all based on a report from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2018. Should we exclaim that's faulty journalism going on again, and that there still is no climate scare tactics, or can we actually own up to the fact that this is a current story and remember that it's all been done before.

On a level of what are trustworthy concerns, climate scientists don't have a good track record. Again that goes back to the whole real life data to confirm or correct scientific reports and potential conspiracies. I don't have excuses or explanations, just observations. And what they are leading me to conclude is the climate change scares is going to eventually get people to stop caring for the environment as a whole, (because of how untrustworthy climate science narratives show themselves to be).

Regardless if the scares get a big following from younger generations that are too young to remember this has been tried and publicized before to scare into acceptance, the older generations that make industry standards, and policies will leave the enviornmental concerns at the door.

Where's that bragging climate sociologist around right now? If he doesn't see the issue of growing distrust for enviornmental issues as a whole due to not being trustworthy in climate change, then he should take a real close look at his own worth in the subject matter as well.

Seriously Belly. This is bigger then being momentarily popular or not. This is whether climate scares are transforming policy makers to ignore it unless it helps momentarily for votes, then ignore it again until it's useful to politicians again. There is no end game to actually balance practical solutions for industries, for catching water, for any other real issue. But instead it's turned into an "us versus them" narrative growing more extreme for more scare and vote points over all. This climate change issue is top heavy and unstable. When it crashes it's going to hurt a lot of people who trusted in it, believed the politicians who said they were doing something about it, and industries and environmental issues that became ignored because no one cared about nonthreatening issues in the background.

Call it conspiracy theory if you like. I'll just stand by the ability to be observant.

NNS you are aware I believe in some conspiracies
And yes you know I think you are a victim of one of the biggest
Man made climate change is real, yes some fools [we have them] said and did silly things on my side of the debate
But the science is right
Conspiracy? what better way for fossils who own fossil fuels to fight against some thing that threatens their money bins?
Even Fun for them, getting victims like you to fight for them
Look at animal extinctions, sea of floating plastics, beaches covered in it, find me something human growth from the start of the industrial revolution has not damaged
Once the true poor latched onto a thing called communism [it sure turned out to be a thing]
Power and influence never ever wants to see that type of thing again, nore should we
What better way than to adopt the tactic of fake news fake views and in fact gather the very first victims of climate change to? fight to not stop it but deny it exists

Belly wrote: "But the science is right"

Here are two papers you might like ....

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682618305030

Conclusions: "Based on these results and bearing in mind that the climate system is complicated and complex with the existing uncertainties in the climate predictions, it is not possible to reliably support the view of the presence of global warming in the sense of an enhanced greenhouse effect due to human activities. "

AND...

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-21955-0_7

Conclusion: " The contribution to this temperature change due to injections of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to combustion of fossil fuel, and it is 0.02 K."

Is this science right, Belly?

Don't fret, I'm just joshing with ya. I know perfectly well that you'll pretend to not notice these papers because the only science you 'see' is the science that tells you what you want to hear. A bit like good ol' Max who refuses to even look at websites that might tell him something he doesn't want to be true.

This, apparently, is what some people consider 'following the science'.

Still, you're in good company Belly. Millions think they are following the science while not even knowing what the science is.

Belly, 'a sea of plastics' is not CO2 in the atmosphere, it is Asian pollution of the planet. Those pollutions must be outlawed as destructive to life.

Not Now Soon,
You are correct to say the media misrepresented the science on the coming ‘ice age’. We have discussed this before but you do not want to listen. The majority of the hype was from the media, not the scientists. "However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case." http://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

So what to do? Read meta studies on the science. http://skepticalscience.com/naomi-oreskes-consensus-on-global-warming.htm

Now, on 12 years. There’s a difference between our carbon budget and the consequences of breaking that budget. They’re not saying the sky falls in 12 years, but that our carbon budget runs out then and we would have locked in the consequences for future decades and generations. It actually takes time for all that extra heat to move through the world’s oceans and gradually do what it’s going to do. On a much smaller scale, it’s like the difference between going over your spending budget and one day waking up to find out your car has been repossessed while you were asleep.

I find your whole ‘boy who cried wolf’ routine to be repetitive — we’ve discussed this before. Please identify the top 2 or 3 ‘false cries of wolf’ that are troubling you. I would like you to concede that at least the Ice Age drama was a media beat up, NOT a fault of the climate science! One of the lead authors involved recanted within a few years of his paper, but we're STILL studying it because global dimming might turn out to be an emergency strategy we use if climate change gets REAL bad. (Also called Solar Radiation Management.)