Jon315 Wrote:
Nov 13, 2013 2:40 PM
Your post underscores my skepticism. "Peer-reviewed" means little when these peers comprise a "scientific consensus" (an oxymoron). These peers might even be inclined to suppress dissenting opinions. Your example scientist includes an exhaustive list of qualifications - for an AGW apologist. (Well, of course, he has written books and papers.) Is honesty important, here? I believe that using the "denier" label is a dishonest tactic. (BTW, I do not "deny" the Holocaust.) You then present me with a conditional statement (and question) that is reminiscent of Pascal's Wager. (The stakes, here, are just too high for you not to...)