Boris,
Do you understand how people become educated on a subject or even an expert? They spend years reading THOUSANDS of pieces of literature. I have spent almost 20 years reading up on global warming – both pro and con. My opinion has somewhat shifted a few times. Only in the last few (maybe 5) years have I become a AGW skeptic of the first order. Why? Because the evidence of AGW is not there.
I haven’t read jackshit from oil companies, but I’ve sure read a lot from the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and Al Gore (to name a few). Truth told, I’ve read persuasive and well-researched arguments from scientists on both sides.
One thing I noticed, that in about 2004 (an election year – coincidence?), the pro-AGW camp shifted away from predominantly presenting evidence to support their case to attack mode.
Now, the AGW crowd relies more on marginalizing their critics, defaming their critics, ad hominem attacks, brow-beating, demonizing, and playing the victim, than they do presenting scientific rebuttals to legitimate questions. This is not how a group would behave if they were dealing honestly. Yes, you ARE judged by HOW you answer skepticism.
Yes, I have read from the Royal Society, NAS, Nature, Scientific American. I am troubled and saddened that these once-fine institutions and publications have become so politicized and overcome by special interests, that they have lost what it means to scientifically objective and now have become advocacy entities. (Not just on global warming either)
To recap: You form an informed opinion after you have thoroughly researched a subject (I think 20 years is probably enough, how long have you researched it, Boris?). You weigh the pros and cons of the argument and decide whether the pros outweigh the cons. Needless to say, the pros do not outweigh the cons.
So Boris get off your “everyone is brainwashed (or bought off) by Big Oil” argument. Some of us have done a lot of thoughtful research. How about you? Were you brainwashed by Al Gore, Heidi Cullen, James Hansen or some professor in college? Who did your brainwashing?
When we post, should we all have to state our Party affliations, whether we work for the government, are we rabid Bush-haters, socialists, ever worked for Greenpeace? Everyone of these characteristics will likely bias our opinions on AGW. In a forum, such as this, someone’s connection to coal, oil, or the Sierra Club is irrelevant. All opinions are valid. You are tilting at windmills here.
