>>"No scientists here. Just people who THINK they are."
I have never claimed to be a scientist either, in fact I've stated that I'm not.
I do know false logic and bad science when I see it, skills I picked up later in life.
Mike is far from being the worst offender, though - and I don't mean to be picking on you specifically. You've just been the only one in the room for the last few hours.
>>"There were some in the past who just gave up fighting the gish."
You really think it's the 'AGW crowd' who's guilty of the gish gallop? We have a near-consensus of scientists from all around the world regularly outputting research that continues to indicate rapid temperature rise correlating with a rapid atmospheric co2 level rise and continues to indicate that we are at least partially responsible. Just because we don't know exactly how the climate will behave in ten years or five years or even next year doesn't mean climate scientists are wrong about everything those things, it doesn't invalidate the warming aspect and it doesn't invalidate the legitimacy of further research.
Even if we say only 90% of climate scientists are of the opinion that the earth is warming, we are very likely responsible and that a warming earth will cause changes in the climate - do you honestly think that 90% of climate scientists, from almost every country on the planet, are all colluding in secret to lie to us and scam us out of funding and that out of those thousands of climate scientists not one has thought to him or her self "you know, this is wrong" and blown the whistle on the whole thing?
Do you really think climate science research departments in academic institutions all over the world, are so totally corrupt, so totally connected and so totally able to keep a secret that never gets out?
All I see around here from 'the other side' is articles from bloggers, or newspaper copy/paste jobs from press releases of suspiciously funded lobby groups, vastly skewed media coverage given the position of scientists and individual pieces of data like graphs bandied about with proclamations like "i think this doesn't show a trend but rather it is natural variation."
Again - I don't question your right to post these things, but just as you question my credentials - I question yours. Why should I believe you in favour of the vast majority of climate scientists? I've asked a question very similar to this recently on this forum and had nothing in response:
Please show me a recent scientific study by legitimate climate scientists in a well regarded peer-reviewed scientific publication that throws serious doubt to:
1] The conclusion that the earth is in a rapid warming phase, or 2] Correlation of atmospheric co2 and global temperature, or 3] The conclusion that we play a significant role in recently increasing atmospheric co2, or 4] That increasing temperatures globally is likely to cause shifts in climate patterns.
If it's out there I will honestly read it with an open mind and be happy to discuss it on its merits.
