There is your fallacy right there, if there are 12,000 scientists studying climate change, then you have to include me in that number. After all, I am a scientist, and I have studied the subject, never mind that it is not my field of work. Do you honestly believe that there are 12,000 climatologists on the entire planet? That's rediculas on it's face. Furthermore 97% of all statistics are made up on the spot and yours is proof. However, you used a somewhat honest word there, "likely" which is a bit like the word "but" it tends to discount the statement it is in reference to. I said it before and I'll say it again, science is not about consensus, and consensus is not science. Science is about provable facts, and the whole "man is the reason for the present climate change" theory has not provided even one provable fact. NOT A SINGLE ONE!
So to answer your question, "who should I believe ... heyrob or the 97% ..." well, since your "97% of 12,000" claim is nothing but BS, I suggest you open your eyes, and not believe that stupid statistic or me, but quit swallowing the Kool-Aid you've been gulping and pay more attention to those without a monetary profit interest in the debate. Like any true scientific mind, I seek the facts, not for some profit motive, but to know the truth. When I first began reading about Anthropogenic Global Warming, I had no preconceived ideas, but I did have an inherent distrust of the sort of media hype that was being spoon fed to the public.
I sat down to watch "An Inconvenient Truth" when it came out on DVD and I took notes of all the claims, and predictions Gore was peddling. I only got through about the first hour, and had so many notes that I stopped the DVD and began looking into the claims. It turned out that virtually nothing he claimed in that first hour was accurate, and in many cases were flat out lies. In fact, it turned out that there was a lie, misstated claim, or overblown scare tactic, on average of every 80 seconds, throughout the first hour of that, what can only be described as a crockumentary. I never wasted my time going back and finishing the show, I couldn't bare to watch the guy lie for another minute.
I understand that you have your beliefs, and I have no idea where you got your opinions from, or how much you've actually read and/or from what sources to come to your conclusions. Conversely you don't know my history either, but I do know that the vast majority of those who believe as you do, have obtained your information from sources who are not exactly unbiased. The fact that you would claim that there are 12,000 climate scientists out there, only exemplifies your ignorance of the facts. I can assure you that you would be hard pressed to find 5% of that number doing the sort of research that would make them subject matter experts in the field. And I might guess that your 97% figure might play into those who are receiving their funding from a political body, which would taint their credibility severely.
I found it amusing that the AGW alarmists tried to discredit prominent scientists who disputed the theory, people like Fred Seitz, Fred Singer, Richard Lindzen, Bjorn Lomborg, and countless others, by claiming that they had ties to big oil, or other businesses that might have an interest in the outcome of the debate. While yes, many had at one time, had some connection to those businesses, none were currently receiving any funding from those sources. On the other hand, every prominent scientist on the AGW side of the debate were currently either working for or receiving funding from, some government entity. I find that fact more than just a little telling, and I believe that anyone with an open mind would as well.
There is your fallacy right there, if there are 12... (
show quote)