I apologize but in the realm of climate science, even the lauded agency scientists are not immune to pushing fabricated information [url=https://principia-scientific.org/nasa-exposed-in-massive-new-climate-data-fraud/]either[/url], and even [url=http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/06/23/global-warming-fabricated-by-nasa-and-noaa/]historically[/url]. No less, we even have accounts going back as "far" as [url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/03/01/fakegate-the-obnoxious-fabrication-of-global-warming/#61dce6d46140]2012[/url] that it is [url=http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4]anything but[/url] a "settled science". This is ignoring outright examples of [url=https://realclimatescience.com/2015/11/record-crushing-fraud-from-noaa-and-nasa-ahead-of-paris/]fraud[/url] which attempted to see us into disastrous projects like the earlier Kyoto Protocol or the Paris Agreement which, unsurprisingly, are not actually being followed by anyone on time or on track to meet the intent in the future to come. Unless of course you consider cheating your numbers, but that seems to be the trend as it is, so perhaps they really have met the mark on what has become of environmentalism in the past thirty years.

At this point, I strongly doubt their "good will" on the matter and the mission, in that this is no more about being objective or looking to preserve the Earth for all species and the future, but instead is founded on sensationalism and feels-good science, with a distinct lack of understanding or willingness to consider viable, achievable options. By this I mean the same people who rant and rave about how coal and fossil fuels are the breath of Satan are utterly content to ignore more efficient and reliable sources like nuclear power, because it does not "feel good" to have to bury radioactive materials or dilute them through extensive processing. Instead they are willing to brow beat everyone to reduce carbon emissions and hedge them into the often less efficient, less available natural sources, many of which they have an investment in to succeed; odd that last part, in that it almost seems like they have a monetarily vested interest to succeed.

No less, for the preservation of species, climate change is not the largest or most prominent issue here. Human expansion is, by which I mean mostly agricultural and population expansion. There will be many, many things that devastate the varied ecosystems, namely those exotic to us, before climate change does and turning the land into farmland by a bunch of peasant third world farmers is going to be one of those leading causes. As it goes in contrast still, the infamous polar bear example has swung back the other way that there are now [i]too many[/i], the same can be shown with expeditions to the artic that were stopped... [url=http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/20/global-warming-expedition-stopped-in-its-tracks-by-arctic-sea-ice/]by an unusually high concentration of sea ice and expanding glaciation.[/url]

I am a skeptic with [i]very[/i] good reason to be.