Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman
Indeed.
http://skepticalscience.com/global-w...-consensus.htm
Myth = there is no consensus
That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.
http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2012/...mate-nonsense/
If the scientific consensus doesn’t agree with what you want to hear, the Daily Mail reporter knows that you can always get some D-list fringe scientists to make it all better. |
The scientists that supported the letter are far from D-list "fringe" scientists.
They're only considered "d-list" because they weren't funded by any of the big foundations or corporations from the pro-AGW movement.
The "consensus" is mostly formed from institutions (eg IPCC), rather than individuals. And when individuals (either a part of those institutions or aside from them) speak out or disagree, they get intimidated or repremanded in some way.
From my article;
"Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job."
"Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that
the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word "incontrovertible" from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question "cui bono?" Or the modern update, "Follow the money."
Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them."
So while many have insisted that the anti-AGW is funded by big oil or big something, the same can be said for the pro-AGW. In other words, this is corporate tobacco science at work.
I am still wondering why no other solution aside from cap/trade & carbon tax has been proposed....