You should stop using the internet then, it's was made by scientists ;)

I don't cherry pick but media does. As a result simple minds rely on second or even third hand knowledge filteres and simplified by said media. The very base of science is skepticism. Nothing should be based on faith. As I said before if you see a research that you don't agree with, do your own, publish and the better should win.

There are serious flaws with climate models. Like, for example, how they fail to model the climate. The "best" scientific minds on earth have had 40+ years to work on this problem, and we're no closer to a working predictive model than we were in 1970.

We still don't have enough of computing power. Hopefully quantum computing should do the job as by design is more fit for such computation. Also don't mix climate and weather.

I'm skeptical, if I see a research I check who was behind it, who founded it and who also works in the same field and publish to have a chance to compare.

I agree with OP to a certain extend but I don't see a reason to reject science as a whole and people who do that are just short sighted. Also OP forgot to add to his info-graphic those paid by BP and Exonn who reject man made climet change.

If you think scientists are a small homogeneous group you're delusional. Yes, there are money involved, yes there are scientists for sale but that's minority. Saying science is corrupted as a whole is like saying all professional athletes are disabled and use wheelchairs after seeing basketball game on the para-olimpics.

Why should I believe people who are paid by big oil about climate change (as all deniers)?

You don't get to accuse Big Pharma and Big Tobacco of funding fraudulent studies, and then defend the scientific consensus on issues you personally favor. The mechanisms at play are identical in both scenarios.

What? Do you think the world is just black and white?

Same players in academia. Same editors of the journals. Same level of peer scrutiny applied. Same everything.

I work in one of the big 3 of academic publishing. If a research gets published other people, not only scientists can verify and negate the results (and if it's a important research proving it's wrong give equal amount of fame and scientific resarch). That's how science works. Scientific method is one of the best tools we humans ever created.

If one doesn't see a difference between various types of studies then is prone to manipulation. There is a difference between sponsored "studies" on 14 subjects running for two weeks (typical study used to back claims about "new and improved face cream") and massive cohort studies based on 1000's of subjects and running for decades.

If science is for sale, consensus is worthless.

Humans are for sale, humans are worthless.

'GMOs are healthy' is a corporate lie?

More like 'GMOs will kill you. Better pay twice as much for the organic version!'

People seem to have this idea that science is somehow immune from bias. Sadly scientists don't get employed to research whatever they want - and are largely impacted by grant money or other means of payment.

The scientific method is supposed to make research as non biased as possible, but a righteous scientist who reports that soda or cigs cause cancer will be both righteous and out of a job.

So you thought it was right until the name was displayed. Then you thought it was a lie?

Ignore vaccines at your own peril. Who knows when the government might release the next "outbreak".

Wasn't me dude. I only dv spam not people I have conversations with.

That's the problem with politics. Solved problems don't make $. But constant and never ending process of solving does :( I'm quite positive that CO2 is a problem but also methane and chlorine compounds as well.

There is fairly wide consensus about human made climate change. All models take into consideration natural CO2 sources, sun activity and such and still our additional "few cents" makes the difference. It's true that vulcanos produce CO2 but such levels as the current were present when vulcanic activity was far bigger than today.

There is one more thing. The biggest producers of CO2 made enough moneys to switch to nuke, solar and so on. Right now their push towards limits is hypocrisy and also a tool to slow down developing countries.

Would be worth adding few more corporate lies: homeopathy, vitamins and antioxidants, climate change opposition...

Climate Politics. The science is quite good and really points out that we are screwing our planet. But politicians as always can pimp anything to make a cash cow from it.

Like I say, if the co2 haters were serious, they'd be finding ways to plug volcanos

Isn't this how they labeled ddt unsafe. Now I'm confused

That's not just corps, that applies to lot's of areas.

Global warming. Accept it or be a Nazi.

just look at what they did to the co-founded of Greenpeace when he denied global warming.