How about you provide some wide-ranging and peer-reviewed PROOF that these pseudo-scientists are credible? This is exactly what the anti-climate change forces do all the time - provide one voice as opposition to hundreds and then claim that they should have an equal voice. That is bogus science being used for political motivations at its worst...landscaper said:If you have peer reviewed information that the scientists that were quoted are wrong please put it on the thread. If youare just going to rant rave and spew about people who have a differing view that is entirley supported by science please don't.
The whole point of this thread was that some people have a differing opinion of climate change or global warming or what ever next weeks name is.
Differing scientific opinion is BELIEVE IT OR NOT a good thing it stops issues from being hi jacked by special interest groups be that group big oil or environmental activists.
Immediatly announcing that anybody who disagrees with the global warming hypothysis is either in the pay of big oil or takeing money from other interest groups is insulting to both the scientist and to any of us who want to actually take a look at the science and the issues with out taking an immediate side. This part is called examining the issue.
The concept that a geographer is not qualified to have an opinion on this matter is more than insulting. As part of his education in his specialty he would have had to look climate and changes to climate as they pertain to the local geographic area. Changes to climate and to geography would likely be noticable over geological time stretches.
Why on Earth why would credible scientists waste time refuting bogus science that has already been proven 100 times over? It is a waste of scientific resources - a typical shell-game move by those who are opposed to the concept of climate change and are so desperate to advance their agenda that they try and drag down those that have credibility in the area. Hmm, sounds EXACTLY like what you are accusing the scientific community of, except that you want to have that power from the minority. Interesting...
Since climate change is accepted by the majority of credible scientists across almost every relevant scientific field, the onus is on YOU, the naysayers, to prove that climate change does not exist and is not at all caused by human actions.
As far as shooting down a geographer's credibility, I am using your own earlier arguments against you - you claimed that non-climatologists and certain scientists cannot credibly comment on climate change. You even specifically named David Suzuki, who has more scientific chops than Timothy Bell ever will.
Once again, you have conveniently ignored my point that doing what is right for the environment is the right thing to do, whether you believe in climate change or not. This point alone makes me question your motivations.