re: #277 mrshankly01

i don’t agree that there is a “preponderance of the evidence”. I agree that there is a consensus (if you take the United Nations and Al Gore’s word), but I can give you some great michael crichton links to show you that consensus is a bunk measure of scientific worth. Also, how do you determine that there is a “preponderance of the evidence.” Please do not use the United Nations panel as we have seen many times on this website that it is an organization determined to bring down industrialized first world nations. Also, you say that Scientists that are unfunded by corporate interests are the only scientists worth listening to. are these the same scientists that are funded by government interests actively looking for proof of global warming and knowing if they don’t find it they will loose their funding. Also, do you claim that the biggest climate change champion of them all, Al Gore, is untainted by corporate influence.

I object to you pointing the finger at people who do not believing in Gl0obal Warming as being profiteers and dishonorable. That is a straw man argument. Counter them with facts and analysis and not populist crap such as they are “bought by the MAN”

Michael Crichton.

If you would take the word of a fiction writer over the word of career scientists, then I really don’t have much to say. Seriously. Michael Crichton?

I didn’t use the phrase “bought by the man.” How would you describe the behavior of the cigarette companies in regard to cancer for several decades, after internal documents showed they knew the dangers? Was that “populist crap”?

They are countered with facts and analysis. Have you read any of the great links Charles has posted recently, a sort of “mythbusters” of the most common arguments on the subject? If you can read those and not change your opinion, I’ll get off your back.