Carleas wrote
He’s saying that there is no legitimate consensus due to funding, institutional pressure, and politics. He gives examples why the evidence of research even you use in Wiki is faulty. The stuff you refer to in Wiki is bogus but you can’t understand that the climate alarmists aren’t really doing science so much as pushing their fear mongering agenda. What about the 30,000 scientists who signed a report than man-made emissions are not causing global warming? 30,000 Does that look like 97%, 98% or the 100% that one of your Wiki scientists claim agree in global warming?
Wiki
You think that they read the abstracts…no they didn’t. They googled for key words, that’s all. None of those supposed scientists read the articles and none have any idea how the words they googled were applied in the papers, only that those words were present. Really disingenuous research. Carleas, most of what Wiki offers as evidenced science are these research shams and organizations supporting those research shams that never applied any real scientific investigation into their stats. Huge batches of unread paper with key words in them. No one read what the key words were referring to. Total sham of evidence about what the papers say and what the scientists actually think.
I can’t believe that this is the type of science you support.
Carleas wrote
If climate scientists who deny global warming aren’t bullied, why would Happer say “took quite a bit of a risk in signing the statement?” If honest scientists weren’t bullied, there would be NO risk in speaking the truth.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/20/susan-crockford-fired-after-finding-polar-bears-th/
Google police haven’t made that article disappear yet but they will because it doesn’t support the climate change narrative and it makes the climate alarmists look bad.
Carleas wrote
And where is the consensus that it’s causing problems and is harmful to the environment? A general consensus that both natural and man-made climate change contributions are happening is not the issue, the negative effects are the issue.
Thanks for the sci-hub link Carleas. That will help with our future debates.