"Matt Barrow" wrote:

But I am a layman with a business to run; at some point, I have to
decide: shall I return to university and become thoroughly educated on
climatology, or shall I judge by what the preponderance of peer-reviewed
science has concluded?

The "peer-reviewed" reports are supposedly running 100% in favor of HAGW.
Not even evolution gets that high of "consensus".

If that is true, (where'd you get that number?) what does that mean to you?

I suggest you be a little more skeptical of your own "pre-ordained
conclusions".

You, of course, are utterly objective. I can only aspire to reach that
level of critical clarity some day.

I, too, have a business to run and I highly suspect it's a bit larger and
more diverse than yours,

Dear me--I'm in awe!

but I manage to dig through both sides of the issue and one side is
psychopatically stunted.

I can't tell if you're talking about scientific papers or political
journals. It sounds like the latter.

Which side are most--and I mean a large majority--of scientists currently
on? Are they all deluded leftists doctoring the data to suppress the truth?
Do you think real scientists actually get away with that sort of thing on a
large scale? I will remind you that that is exactly what the creationists
claim about biologists.

Guess which side.

Depends on where you look. If you want political bias on a scientific
subject, it certainly is to be found across the ideological spectrum. Or
are you claiming one side is free of such spin doctoring?

(Hint: see the latter method above)


What do you conclude about the issue of anthropogenic climate change?
Why?

In a nutshell: GW is real. It's CYCLICAL. Anthropogenic factors as down at
the level of "noise".

I notice, too, that all the studies that show the leftist/PC end of things

Now there's a real scientific term for you.

conveniently cherry-pick around the data.

Are you seriously claiming that rightists aren't doing exactly the same?
And, again: are you speaking of scientific papers or political journals?

Main Point: In science, you NEVER cherry pick your data. The name for that
is FRAUD.

Indeed. But you have made the definite assertion that human influence on
climate is down at the level of "noise". What's peer reviewed studies are
you basing that on?

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM