“Why are you so eager to dismiss the opinion of 2000+ hard working climate scientists whose scientific reputations are on the line, and rather spout the pseudo-science of a registered lobbyist for the oil industry?”
I’m eager because I want the truth to reign. Similarly, I believe in evolution, and I am concerned with Creationists taking over the curriculum.
Science should be based on logic, not consensus. Should I be swayed if someone said “2000+ top clergymen say that the Earth was divinely created, then it must be so?”
So “2000+ hard working climate scientists” is an empty phrase to me. 20 lead scientists wrote the IPCC report, and that’s the count I’m interested in. Read earlier in this thread and you’ll see that 60 high ranking scientists, who worked just as hard (likely harder because they get less money and put up with character assassinations) disputed the report.
Oil companies funding climate science is better than politicians doing it, because they’re initimately involved. It doesn’t matter who is behind the research, so long as talented scientists on both sides are given equal opportunity to be funded. When science is done correctly, the money becomes irrelevant.
If there was a global panic about baby food causing ear infections, don’t you think it would be reasonable for Gerber to fund research to disprove it?
The hockey-stick graph that was used in earlier debates about CO2 is perfect example of what I consider “pseudo-science.” This was supposed to have been the smoking gun, but it no longer isnt.
“And, in general, isn’t it interesting that the same people who claim that AGW is a hoax are largely the same people that claimed that smoking didn’t cause cancer, that DDT was not a problem, that asbestos did not cause cancer, that we would be greeted with flowers in Iraq and the war would pay for itself, etc etc?”
I’m not one of them. I just say that AGW is almost certainly a hoax, and I draw this conclusion first on my own scientific intuition, and secondly from scientific evidence. The rest of your points are strawmen. Instead of sticking to hard science, people have to resort to fuzzy logic and character smears. Hiding behind catch phrases like “oil company,” “think tanks,” “shady people,” etc do not relieve one from seeking the truth, and IMO, environmentalists don’t really care about the truth so much as find ways to further their emotionally-based agenda. (Now I admit I’m using the term environmentalist as if its a bad thing… it’s generally not… I’m sure most will understand whom I’m referring to.)
Your arguments about CO2 are very good, by the way. Unfortunately for you, it doesn’t prove AGW.
“Why would you try to dismiss that or downplay that?”
Why would you dismiss evidence disproving AGW? You and I shouldn’t be the ones to have to convince each other (although it’s noble to try). What society needs are truly impartial scientists, funded fairly, who *haven’t* staked their reputations on the outcome. Science over superstition is always a good thing.
