Lensman wrote:How strange to claim that a study from Berkeley is "independent" of the NCC Denier community. The political philosophies of the two institutions are exactly aligned, and for both institutions it's been shown that their activist political agenda has an undue influence on their activities.
Be objective about this study and it implications. It was performed a bunch of scientists who were regarded as impartial by guys who support your view.
At Berkeley? Seriously? Do you have any idea what a reputation Berkeley has?
Are you an American? I'm guessing not, or you'd know how notorious Berkeley is as a hotbed of far-left-wing political activity.
Technopete wrote:These funders included the Koch brothers, the billionaire US industrialists, who, according to the BBC, have also donated large sums to organisations lobbying against acceptance of man-made global warming.
In many cases, certainly one should ask where the money came from, because some organizations just fund study after study until they get the result they want, then advertise that one.
But in this case, since the study was conducted at a major university (and presumably was *not* performed over and over again, but only once) I think far more important than where the funding came from is who actually conducted the study. It's not like the Koch Bros' check had some magical power to cause far left radicals to suddenly dump their political agenda, is it?
Why in the world would anyone have chosen Berkeley for a so-called "independent" review? That doesn't appear rational to me. That's like hiring the Vatican to do an "independent" study of the Roman Catholic Church. Why *invite* people to dismiss the study in advance, without serious consideration, merely because of the notoriety of Berkeley?
Sorry Technopete, something smells rather badly here.
Technopete wrote:This independent study confirmed the results of mainstream climate change studies.
Well, it would if it was actually and truly independent, which appears extremely unlikely to me.
And BTW, I think we are not going to agree on your use of the term "mainstream" here. I don't consider so-called climate "science" from the IPCC crowd to be "mainstream" just because it encompasses the majority of climate researchers, any more than I consider so-called "cold fusion/LENR science" from the LENR crowd to be "mainstream" just because it encompasses the majority of cold fusion/LENR researchers.
Technopete wrote:If there is not a trace of systematic bias in the mainstream temperature studies, then that means there is no mainstream conspiracy.
One study confirming another by the Natural Climate Change Deniers. Gee, it's almost like their political agenda gave them a motive to agree with each others' conclusions.
Technopete wrote:...as a matter of policy you are never going to believe anything said by people who have reached a conclusion that global warming is human-induced.
That's right, I'm never going to believe anything said by those who have demonstrated and even publicly admitted over and over and over that their political Dogma is more important to them than speaking and writing Truth.
We are the 99%. A better world is possible.