Do you realize who denies anthropogenic climate change?

Question

Recently 60 "scientists" called on Candian PM Stephen Harper to "revisit science on global warming". What is more interesting is who these people are and who's interest they really represent.

People that deny global warming - these dishonest people are the source of your information! Please look at this before believing the nonsense that they preach.

Copy of the letter to PM Harper: (lists "scientists" at bottom)
http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/april2006/15/warming.html

Who are the 60?
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1272

John P -- "...the same in reverse."

What exactly is that supposed to mean, and how does it make their scientifically sound research suspect? The people that signed the letter consisted of two types -- either climatologists/geologists that work for the petroleum industry, or people that have never published a peer-reviewed paper related to climatology (in some cases they've never published anything at all).

Global warming is not a religion -- and most of the scientists that give evidence in support of anthropogenic climate change are not in the pocket of the alternative energy industry. So who exactly is benifited if they exadurate the human influence on climate change?

Calling climate change "a religion" is about as absurd as calling evolution "a religion". It is scientific theory that is well supported by evidence - the deniers of climate change use twisted interpretations of good science to suggest that what is happening is normal. That, my friend, is pseudo-science.

Answer 1

In answer to that, who do the people on on desmogblog work for. Pretty much the same thing in reverse. What makes their scientists any better than the 60? Why is it an issue to question findings? Is that not the very nature of science. I find it very disturbing that people are dismissing anything that doesn't fit this new religion and actually shouting down people who ask questions. Debate and discourse are important with anything.

Exactly my feelings...in reverse. Psuedo science can be placed on both door steps with ease. There are many extremely qualified scientific types that disagree on climate change, and not all "funded" by oil companies. You realize that David Suzuki is also funded by oil companies? To me, the whole issue has turned into a "religion", and I use that as other similes escape me. There does not appear to be a lot of sober discussion going on, only rants and the like from a lot of very unqualified people. like us for example. I truly don't know what to believe, but having said that, I am completely against carbon credits and the smoke and mirrors of Kyoto. Something needs to be done, but anything that allows the world's second largest emitter (China) to do nothing, makes very little sense to me. Even what Australia has done with light bulbs, although great on the surface, makes no sense once you realize that it creates a whole new problem in that these new bulbs contain mercury! Bottom line, we live in confusing times.