re: #33 LudwigVanQuixote

It is evident that the “science” your institute produces in regards to AGW serves the financial and political interests of the groups that fund you.

Really? Funny how BP now stands for “Beyond Petroleum” and “Big Oil” were among the biggest cheerleaders for cap-and-trade.

It is questionable form for a scientist to associate with such groups because it calls his scientific rigor deeply into question.

Now, that’s an honest opinion … not a bald assertion of “fact” you could have no way of knowing (like he’s paid by us). Fair enough. But hundreds of scientists — from Harvard, MIT, Yale, and other prestigious universities — have presented at our conferences. And we’re grateful they don’t share your view.

A troubling question is formed by this. Why would an otherwise excellent scientist, with a sterling reputation, come out and call the work of his colleagues a religion and spout the talking points of an institute like yours with no particular research of his own to back up his assertions?

Good question. Perhaps you should have asked him. But considering the boldness of it, perhaps he’d seen solid evidence to the contrary and got fed up with what he saw was the abandonment of the scientific search for truth and the mantra of “consensus.”

For more science that goes against the “consensus,” Google “CERN global warming sun.”