Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck
The scientists that supported the letter are far from D-list "fringe" scientists.
|
They're also far from climate scientists, most of them anyway.
You take the list of 16 and seem to put authority in them that their opinion is more important.
But then 255 scientists write and sign a letter which refutes what those 16 say, but you choose to disregard them.
Are you picking and choosing based on what you want to think?
And even if they were all outstanding published climatologists, that still doesn't mean they're right. There's scientists that think the earth is 6000 years old, doesn't mean the idea is worth anything.
There is a consensus:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20...87107.abstract
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck
They're only considered "d-list" because they weren't funded by any of the big foundations or corporations from the pro-AGW movement.
|
You're just making this up because it supports your position.
Unless you've got a list of all the people funding these 16 and the 255 that signed the response letter and can compare. Please produce such a list so we can see how you came to your decision.
It's also amusing because people from the "anti-AGW" movement funded a study to come up with the REAL data about the earth's climate.. and they came to the same conclusions about the temperature. So much for results being driven by the money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck
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.
|
More fabrications. You do understand that the IPCC doesn't do any science right? The IPCC assembles the science from the published science of individual scientists around the world.
And it's demonstrably false because there are papers published that question the consensus or don't explicitly support it; they're mostly just either not very good, aren't compelling enough in enough numbers to disprove the consensus theory.
But it's funny you say this, because if you really believed this you would also have a problem with the WSJ that published the letter signed by the 16, since they refused to publish the response letter that was signed by 255. But that's ok as long as it supports your desired position?
Science (the journal) published it though.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/689.full.pdf
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck
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.
|
It happens in some cases no matter what, but the vast majority of the time the funding for doing science is not tied to the desired conclusion. And you have no proof that it is, you just have some claims in a magazine article that has a proven agenda that you choose to believe because it fits your ideology.
Way back in this thread I produced a list of available grants in the area of studies that could be related to the topic and asked someone to point out where the requirements were for specific conclusions... I haven't seen any yet.
Nor do I see any evidence of all scientists being dishonest and corrupt, which is required for your perception to work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck
I am still wondering why no other solution aside from cap/trade & carbon tax has been proposed....
|
The measures to address an issue aren't related to the veracity of the issue itself, this is just more fallacious thinking.
And it's funny, because the same political group that WANTED cap and trade for past issues like this now are against it.