Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf
thats like 97% of rabbi's saying god exists [they would their job depends on it ]  |
Many scientists could find employment if they came out with conclusions which helped the oil companies and indeed they do find jobs, just not the science.
---------- Post added at 07:51 ---------- Previous post was at 07:30 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
There isn't scientific consensus. As you suggest there's consensus amongst those that already back the hypothesis.
|
Well that's a nonsense isn't it? By definition if you exclude everyone who backs the hypothesis then you're going to be left with people who aren't part of the consensus.
However the scientific bodies that form part of that consensus are pretty qualified:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...ific_consensus they include the likes of NASA, the Scientific Academies of a lot of nations including the UK (Royal Society). Many organisations whose purpose is far broader than climate change so their jobs do not depend on it.
The skeptics don't produce much scientific evidence for their claims. I believe they've yet to produce any serious paper that refutes it. Most of the science which has caused climate scientists to revise their predictions comes from those who continue to back the hypothesis.
Most skeptic work comes from outside of science from people writing opinion pieces or editorals. It's the same as the vaccine nonsense a few years ago where you get one scientist/doctor say something and then an army of opinion-markers who take that and blow it up beyond all proportion to the scientific merit of their case. Bonus points if they dismiss the vast majority of scientists contradiction as part the establishment elite.