peer review process is (double) blind
Isn’t this happening on both sides? And would you in the same say: “Contra-G.W.” research is not science?
I agree that you can’t trust every published global warming paper. But it would be a bit too easy – and also self-righteous – to say: The whole global warming research is bullshit because one or another paper had been faked - and at the same time accepting contra-global-warming-research as real science although there happened unserious activities too.
Yes, I totally agree here. I do not understand the general denial of a potential human caused global warming many conservatives share.
Even if there were human caused global warming, this wouldn’t necessarily imply negative consequences for the economy, conservatives or the western world itself.
In another thread someone said “Capitalism causes opportunity”. Along these lines I think investing into green tech is much more an opportunity for people to make money, do research, found companies, create jobs… than a threat to the western society. And this issue could be very interesting especially for conservatives. Capitalism always finds solutions and problems can be seen as chances. For conservatives it’s self-defeating to leave the whole environmental topics to the left.
Do you have any reasons for this very strong claim? My position is: I don’t know if human cause global warming because I didn’t study metrology. You on the other side seem to KNOW that there is no human caused global warming – why else your certainty.
So, are you an expert, able to assess scientific articles from both pro and contra global warming sides or do you just CLAIM that there is no human caused global warming because this is what you WANT to believe? And would you say: Everything we want to believe comes true…