I find it very odd, considering the millions of positives that science has bought us - why do you now instantly refuse to trust scientific consensus. ?
Many people go one and on about %26quot; They are all in it for funding%26quot; - but they are not, if scientists were in it for the money they wouldn%26#039;t be scietists at all. A degree in physics in the UK will get you a very well paid job in the city, and many people go down that route- but those that stay in science and research stay because they have a passion for it , a yearning for understanding - why would they ALL want to lie ?
I say all, since I can accept that a few people will get paid off, or go on a quest for funding. but not many. Since so many are saying basically the same thing , I do not believe that they are ALL lying or being paid off , I doubt any are.
Additional Details
7 months ago
You also have to consider reputation ? If AGW was so clearly a %26quot;scam%26quot; or a %26quot;lie%26quot;, Non one would want to ruin their future reputation by supporting it. Imagine how hard it would be to get funding in say 30 years time, if AGW turned out to be a myth. No-one would fund them for anything.I guess I%26#039;m just frustrated since I really do not understand why so many of you are so quick to condemn thousands of scientists as lairs and scam artists.
Enlighten me.
Many of the scientists promoting global warming are not following the scientific method when it comes to data archiving, data sharing and openness. To understand how important this is, read some of the policies of the government funding agencies and scientific journals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_sharin...
One example is the Hockey Stick Controversy. Michael Mann attempted to photoshop the temperature record going back 2,000 years to take out the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. When Steve McIntyre tried to audit (reproduce) his study, Mann provided data at first. When McIntyre found an error and asked for more data, Mann refused. A Dutch science magazine did a great story on this. Here is the English translation.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/researc...
The dendroclimatologists have almost all followed Mann%26#039;s lead and refused to archive or share their data. They do not want others checking their results or finding errors. Why would they do that when they know it is contrary to the standards of science? The only logical answer is because they are promoting an agenda and not science. Why would they do that? Because the agenda brings more money into their field so they can do much research and make more alarmist announcements and get on TV.
Refusing to archive data is common in climatology. Phil Jones of Climatic Research Unit (the keeper of the temperature record for UN%26#039;s IPCC) does not archive his data and has repeatedly refused to share data.
Global warming is a subjective science. Scientist have to make a best guess as they don%26#039;t know what the climate will be in the future.
Not all scientist agree. Many scientist in Russia and at NASA have determined that the Sun in the cause of global warming. Yet there are those who claim to embrace science who are so quick to dismiss these scientist just because they don%26#039;t agree with their beliefs.
Not all %26quot;scientists%26quot; are pure. Some have alternative motives, and yes money is one of them. This is why the standard for science should always be the objective standard.