Thanks for the explanation. I understand the basis of the argument, including the methane aspect, at least to some degree.
Here are some reasons some people are very resistant:
- Science has claimed that poisons from everything from DDT to glyphosate were harmless to humans. It's been going on a long time, and continues to happen with each new round of destructive chemicals.
- Science provided us with saccharin and aspartame as healthy alternatives to sugar.
- Science has been known to have inbreeding, including self-peer-reviews. Hyung-In Moon is a great example.
- Universities have also been known to teach what their benefactors sell.
- Science claims that plants are bad for us but synthesized food and medicine are good.
- USDA - Reams could be written. I already mentioned dietary standards based on false data.
- FDA - Ditto
- Some scientists claim one thing while others claim another.
- You're probably more aware of these types of things than I am. But Stanford had a bit to say about it here.
Add to this asinine legislation such as carbon taxes, fart taxes and myriad other fees, regulations and draconian impositions, and people are fed up. Scientific consensus has lied to us and been wielded as a mechanism of control by the state, as well as corporations, often for cronyistic reasons and to both the physical and financial detriment of those who buy into the claims.
Al Gore.... not much more needs to be said here.
This isn't an attack on your personally. But you and your colleagues would do well to be empathetic to folks who are sick of being yanked around by the nose by so-called science. It's incredibly difficult to know who to believe. And just claiming credentials and expertise simply isn't enough, especially when someone is attempting to wield the claimed results in a way that's detrimental to most of us. It has as much credibility as saying, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help".