In Reply to: Beware of Experts posted by Tony Lauck on October 16, 2010 at 21:31:24:
AFAIK, most of this information is already public.
The thing is, there's no scientific case against AGW. None. If there were, all it would take is one young climate scientist, eager to make his name, and an article in a peer-reviewed journal, and we'd be done with the whole thing.
The energy industry has virtually unlimited financial resources. They can do all the research they want. And yet they haven't produced any science to refute AGW. Why? Because like the tobacco industry, they know full well that the science isn't on their side. So instead, they use the techniques of public relations and politics to fool the public. They can't do science, so they attack the credibility of scientists, the way hack politician smear their opponents.
This doesn't affect the science, any more than the tobacco industry's "more doctors smoke Camels" ads and blackout in health coverage in most popular magazines prevented scientists from making the smoking-cancer link. But, like the tobacco industry's subterfuge, it results in terrible harm to the public, since it becomes politically impossible to take the steps necessary to mitigate warming. So we face the terrible consequences of warming, and the probable added costs of desperate last-minute attempts at mitigation.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Beware of Experts - josh358 06:24:35 10/17/10 (9)
- RE: Beware of Experts - Tony Lauck 08:09:50 10/17/10 (8)
- RE: Beware of Experts - josh358 08:57:42 10/19/10 (7)
- RE: Beware of Experts - Tony Lauck 07:30:14 10/20/10 (6)
- RE: Beware of Experts - josh358 09:33:36 10/20/10 (5)
- RE: Beware of Experts - Tony Lauck 11:02:12 10/20/10 (4)
- RE: Beware of Experts - josh358 06:55:29 10/21/10 (3)
- RE: Beware of Experts - Tony Lauck 08:25:09 10/21/10 (2)
- RE: Beware of Experts - josh358 10:29:20 10/21/10 (1)
- RE: Beware of Experts - Tony Lauck 10:56:02 10/21/10 (0)