On Wed, April 23, 2014 3:19 pm, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
Sure, but there are plenty of scientists and non-scientists that are /supporting/ this cause due to brain washing, not actual real facts and if there are actual real facts that are valid, the /supporters/ are not necessarily *qualified* in the actual area concerned -- it becomes to them, another religious position ... a bit like, a cop will stand up for other cops before /possibly/ one day finding out that the cop they are standing up for is in the wrong. I've said it before and I'll say it again, this is a political situation, not a science situation and perhaps in 10 or 20 years time [but definitely in the future] the fraud will be well proven and the gullibility of the people will also be laughed at.
I consider myself a person who is very cautious is coming to conclusions, even if those conclusions are radical. Having reviewed a great deal of the literature on the subject, I have a very high level of confidence (over 90%) that the mainstream scientific view of global warming is correct. I am yet to encounter sufficient evidence to the contrary. I have always encouraged people to provide me good reason to think otherwise. I have considered such suggestions as alleged increased solar radiation, cosmic rays, doubts on the temperature record and so forth. I find the evidence of these alternatives lacking convincing power. I invite anyone who does think that the mainstream climatologist community is mistaken, or that there is a massive fraud, to provide evidence so I may reconsider my point of view on the matter. -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt