Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
That's a site created less than a month ago by some guy who works in IT. It has a list of names, only a few of which look like actual climatologists. A few names picked at random show people who are known for opposing AGW but not for actually publishing any science on it, or publishing it in non-scientific places, or writing books.
A consensus is formed through research and publication in academic journals relevant to the field, so a few scientists (most of whom are not climatologists, and some aren't even scientists!) who sign some paper doesn't mean anything to the consensus.
|
Aren't most sites created by IT guys? How do you know names were "picked" and that they were done so randomly? Are you certain that none of them are published? In AGW science circles, that's called "'friendly' peer review" and "consensus" is stated not gained.
Ultimately, one of three critical sources of historical climate temperature data is corrupt. The science is not settled. That is fact, not fiction.
As one of three critical sources of historical climate temperature data, it is safe to assume that a significant number of studies incorporating that data are rendered invalid. Does it mean the scientists that used that data are corrupt? No. Although some of them certainly seem to be. The support I have for these statements is as firmly rooted in opinion as your's are above.