Quote Originally Posted by dslater View Post
I simply think you're wrong here - scientific journals make their money from subscriptions - very expensive subscriptions at that. Also, the idea that global warming is the orthodoxy is a very strange one as well - as little as ten years ago, the "orthodoxy" was that global warming either didn't exist or we didn't have enough information to make any conclusions. These attitudes have been changing over time as more evidence comes in. Very few things in this life are conclusive - However, when a large number of climatologists claim that global warming is "very likely" caused by human activities, ignoring them is foolish. Finally, I find the idea that there is some kind of political conspiracy to support environmentalists simply doesn't pass my common sense test - after all, you are talking about people whose primary source of re-election funds comes from big oil and big business - do you really think they're going to turn around and support policies that go directly against the interests of their primary campaign contributors and lobbyists? Consider George Bush is about as far from an environmentalist as you get - he is himself an oil man. The idea that he would do anything to support the IPCC findings is simply ridiculous.
I have made made no claims about global warming or it's causes. Nor have I suggested any conspiracies; it does not require one: only peer-pressure.

I have restricted my observations to the narrow point that science does not work in the nice clean way that we would like and suggested a couple of areas where it falls short. Any look at the history of science will show that personal ambition, prestige and prejudice have often been an issue. Although science may get there in the end, and it is certainly the best tool we have, it does not always do so in as straight a line of pure intellect as we might hope.

Cheers, Bob.