Re: [Phys-L] proof that humans have not evolved

["John Clement" <clement@hal-pc.org>]

What about the other side, the deniers who cite things like the increased
extent of the ice sheet in Antarctica while ignoring that the overall ice
has decreased.  What about the "scientists" such as Spencer who argue that
clouds will produce negative feedback, while at the same time on other web
sites argue that God will not allow global warming.  There is an A&M
physical study which showed that clouds probably produce positive feedback.

And now the evidence is that the rise in CO2 came at the beginning the
historical warming periods, not after.

The amount of money gained by climate scientists is a drop in the bucket
compared to the amount of money being made by the other entrenched
interests.  There are far more evangelicals who are adamently opposed to GW
or AGW on religious grounds than scientists, and they will not look at
evidence.  They are the same people who put Nessi in the textbooks.  Science
has peer review and publishes results that can be criticized, so it has a
lot of self correction.  Scientists who cheat are usually found out, and
their grants disappear, so they are generally honest.  Of course there are
always a few who cheat big time and these have generally been in medicine
and biology where there are truly big bucks at stake.  So I would trust a
scientist much more than an executive.  The accusation that they are doing
this as a vested interest is essentially claiming they are cheating.  I call
that a serious accusation.

As to the words, weak, myopic, and paternalistic, those are personal
opinions and not factual or verifiable.  The last resort of those who have
weak arguments is to use insult and accusation.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


> reflect a true scientific position. I also disagree with you that 
> controversy about AGW (not just GW) is due to the same vested 
> interests. 
> If at all, the vested interests in this case that are 
> promoting action 
> w/o scientific basis are the entrenched climate scientists 
> and enviroquacks.