- Feb 26, 2007
To say funding is "totally irrelevant", is ridiculous. Why would Exxon Mobil fund anti global warming think tanks, if they don't expect information gathered to be weighted in their favor? I'm sure their motives must be entirely pure. Are you telling me, you completely trust the information that comes from an oil company funded organization? There is, without a doubt, a definite warming trend, and the clear majority of climate scientists and organizations agree that man has contributed significantly. Next, you'll be telling me, that according to a study financed by Phillip Morris, smoking doesn't cause cancer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Information is information. Either it is correct or not. Who or where it comes from has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is accurate or not.
If you can't effectively rebutt the information, the inherent weakness of your postion is exposed when you turn to attacking sources rather than debating the science.
And consensus is hardly an indicator as to whether an idea has merit. Should I remind you that prior to WWII, it was very difficult to find a scientist that wasn't on the eugenics bandwagon and any scientist who suggested otherwise was a special interest radical. After WWII, however, it seemed that no one ever actually supported the idea of eugenics.
And for all the "consensus", there is not a shred of actual evidence to support it. What there is, is billions of dollars being doled out to scientists who jump on the bandwagon. Scientists in fields that not so long ago weren't very highly paid. Today, jumping on the bandwagon means a BMW and a stylish address. Not bad for nerds who were barely making 35K a decade ago if they could get a position as a weatherman.
If you care to debate the science and demonstrate that you aren't just a parrot repeating whatever you have been told to repeat, then lets talk science. If you aren't, then your opinion is worthless since it is really not even your own.