"But as the number of researchers has skyrocketed in recent years...it has become more difficult than ever to stand out from the crowd." -- Hmm. It would seem the best way to truly "stand out" is to offer OPPOSING viewpoints from the 'approved' narrative.
"[M]any mainstream climate scientists tend to view...addressing emissions [a]s the r…
"But as the number of researchers has skyrocketed in recent years...it has become more difficult than ever to stand out from the crowd." -- Hmm. It would seem the best way to truly "stand out" is to offer OPPOSING viewpoints from the 'approved' narrative.
"[M]any mainstream climate scientists tend to view...addressing emissions [a]s the right approach." -- While focusing on emissions may not be necessary to address "climate change," there is something to be said about their effect on human health (eg, reducing air particulates to prevent asthma, COPD, etc.). I wonder how the scientific publications would treat research papers that took that approach.
"But as the number of researchers has skyrocketed in recent years...it has become more difficult than ever to stand out from the crowd." -- Hmm. It would seem the best way to truly "stand out" is to offer OPPOSING viewpoints from the 'approved' narrative.
"[M]any mainstream climate scientists tend to view...addressing emissions [a]s the right approach." -- While focusing on emissions may not be necessary to address "climate change," there is something to be said about their effect on human health (eg, reducing air particulates to prevent asthma, COPD, etc.). I wonder how the scientific publications would treat research papers that took that approach.