I'm not all that interested in passing judgement on "the integrity of the majority of climate scientists". I'm interested in seeing if there's real science behind this constantly-changing thesis. My conclusion at this time is: NO. What is there has been driven more by politics than science.
Maybe these scientists-with-an-agenda can put together a model that lasts longer than a decade before some "unforeseen" aspect throws off their precious theory, or they can curve fit without simply cheating. But I doubt it, based upon past performance. In that upcoming decade, LENR will hit, and hit hard. It's cleaner & greener than fossil fuels, so it should make those enviroweenies feel good. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 7:32 PM, Eric Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Eric, you don't seem to understand what the IPCC is. They are eXACTLY as >> called out -- REPRESENTATIVE of the anthropomorphic climate change thesis. >> > > For the sake of argument, let's assume that it was not just selected > members of the IPPC, but the entire committee, that are corrupt. What > would you have us conclude about the integrity of the majority of climate > scientists as a result? > > Perhaps there are some climate scientists here. For the climate > scientists out there -- are you corrupt? If so, why have you not learned > virtue and integrity from the engineers on this list? What is keeping you > from leading an upright life? > > Eric > >
