re: #905 CommonCents

The second half of that statement. There are true scientists who are skeptical. I think it would have been much better had you not implied that anyone who doubts your theories listens to “some dude in his basement”.

NO, I am pointing to the failure of the critics to bring peer reviewed stuff with actual data to bak themselves. Most of their stuff comes from denialist sites which are written by non-scientists. These sites have a history of cherry picking and distorting data at best and out and out fabricating at worst. A good sign they are crap is if they feel persecuted by some conspiracy of status quo science or rant about grant money.

As to actual scientists who are skeptical, be very careful. The debates are now about highly technical issues about this or that model or analysis. Almost no-one in the legitimate scientific community doubts the overall picture.

One of the biggest skeptics is Ian Plimer. He has falsified data. He has cherry picked. He has been called out on all sorts of sides by real scientists. These are dreadful accusations to make about any scientist. They are well founded.

The most notable skeptic is Freeman Dyson. Dyson is a very great man. He has stated things that worry him about the present formulation, and many other physicists of equal or greater stature have personally argued with him. However, Dyson is not all of science, and Dyson does not come out and say ludicrous things like CO2 can have no effect. Further, Dyson does not work in the field.