2 ms·
Well I think the emails are public in their entirety, which is a distinction to the oval office accounting books? So everybody can do an investigation. Where ar
by Tichy 15y ago
Well I think the emails are public in their entirety, which is a distinction to the oval office accounting books? So everybody can do an investigation. Where are the results from skeptics (other than out of context quotes)? I am sure they invested in analyzing those emails?
In any case, you chose who you trust. Of course the impression that you can not trust anybody in the climate discussion is also beneficial to some parties (it is called FUD).
What do you think an average climate scientists earns, btw? I mean, what would be their incentive for faking it all?
- gavanwoolery 15y agoI do not think that everybody is faking it - at most, there were a handful of scientists who covered up some bad data (if that even happened). Most scientists are benevolent - they are proposing hypotheses they honestly believe in. The problem is that they get attached to the consensus because it is the easiest thing to believe, and do not address all of the factors that could be wrong with their hypothesis. Being skeptical against AGW is much harder - I should know. For the first 25 years of my life, I was a die-hard AGW proponent.
- Tichy 15y agoWhat does AGW stand for - is it not the belief that no global warming is happening? Anyway, this is all just guesswork (what scientists are doing, I mean). More interesting are your motivations for believing certain things. Maybe you need the self-image of being a skeptic?