[LINK] Propaganda, manipulation and the abuse of media [Was: IPA, astroturfing and fantsy themes/Science under attack]

[jim birch]

Tom

I've got a couple of degrees in meteorology and oceanography but I don't
consider myself authoritative on climate - I maintain an active interest
but I don't work in the field.  I would want at least a couple of years
full time to get up to speed.

I can't see how you quoting this or that factoid could possibly be
considered any kind of refutation of mainstream climate science.

No one has done an complete authoritative count, but it is know that the
AGW hypothesis is held to be substantially correct by all but a couple of
percent of people who can reasonably call themselves climatologists.  Who
am I or you to disagree?

If you exclude the "climatologists" who are either paid to think otherwise,
or have demonstrated a fatal attraction to maverickhood in other areas, or
have overriding ideological positions, or repeatedly demonstrated reuse of
disproven facts or arguments, or are just plain crazy, there's about no one
left on the other side.  (This criteria would knock out a few people on the
mainstream climate science side too. ;)

The "They haven't considered X" argument that you are using seems to imply
either a conspiracy of absolutely stupendous proportions, or near universal
incompetence of climatologists.

Jim