The issue is not that no research calling into
question aspects of global warming is getting funded; this is why the open question of why Antarctica is cooling still gets papers published in peer - reviewed journals.
Not exact matches
Re # 8 (and to expand on # 13): I also think that a basic strategy
of the
global warming deniers is to focus on one
aspect of the science over which there is some combination
of real and manufactured dispute and then try to make people think that this is the one crucial piece
of evidence on which the whole theory
of anthropogenic
warming rests... and thus that the dispute over this
aspect throws the whole theory into
question.
This
question presumes that the inputs for such a reconstruction are obtainable; it also presumes that particular
aspects of the previous ice age (s) are relevant to
global warming scenarios.
Or is Paul defending against the charge by making a numbers argument — the scientists in
question are on the same side as the consensus, so to challenge any
aspect of global warming science or politics is to make a statement about «the majority
of scientists» (many
of whom are in fact social scientists)?
And I don't often
question your reasoning w / r / t the science, per se, but on your arguments w / r / t the social
aspects of the debate and on a few occasions, the rhetoric
of your scientific arguments (such as your acceptance
of arguments about a «pause» in «
global warming.»