What is going on
So are scientists dropping AGW or distancing them selves from it, is $trillion to much to gamble with?
Before all, science should be about science, the art of finding out how things really work, and not pursuing political goals.
Recall that I already posted a link showing that there are more scientists than this who refute evolution theory.
Is everyone jumping on the creationist bandwagon as well?
So, maybe we shouldn't be listening to all these scientists because a bunch of other scientists from an unrelated field refute evolution?
I would say that 650 scientists amount to nothing more than a fringe element.
I can probably find 650 scientists who think ET is visiting us as well.
Andre, who would gain from AGW, i guess now the political ball is rolling it will be hard to stop it, it has all ways seemed to me that politicians do not need facts.
Who stands to gain by arguing against it? Could it be big oil?
I guess we need to compare the scientist counts. How many are for and against. And what constitutes as a "fringe".
Everyone knows all scientists who support AGW are only in it to jump on the band wagon so they can get grants and funding from new age hippies et al. Besides I heard someone say they were all idiots who have no idea what they are talking about, I think it might of been the Chairman of Exxon before he was launched into space?
In all seriousness skepticism is what science is about, so who cares about the doubters, they are only there to either destroy or make the theory stronger by failing, that is after all science?
Are scientists who refute evolution theory fringe, or mainstream? What about ET believers?
Show me a crackpot group that doesn't claim a few scientists. Woud you like to talk about magnet therapy?
It could be big oil. And on the otherside, big government (taxes). But that's not the point. Comes down to data interpretation so far as I can see.
I don't know and I don't care, it's not the topic.
anybody bothered to google for Enron + kyoto?
I would agree that you certainly can't compare numbers in one field with numbers in a completely different field, without giving any data on the relative size of the communities.
It sure is; it speaks to the issue of consensus vs fringe.
I think Bohmian mechanics vs quantum mechanics with the Copenhagen interpretation would be a better analogy, then you can ignore all the fundamentalists.
I think the issue of expertise is a good one, I'm far more likely to take a scientist in the field seriously than I am a geologist or a physicist even.
The "650 scientists" were cited in the link from the op. And as I said, I already linked a story about scientists who refute evolution in a thread in P&WA. IIRC, they claim over 700 scientists, so clearly they have the upper hand compared to this group. :uhh:
Excuse me, you said relative size. How many scientists work in related fields? I would say that AGW is a much broader subject.
I see, heck i would never make a good crook.
That is a political organization that has an agenda, not a scientific one.
Separate names with a comma.