Quote:
Originally Posted by maxfl1
|
Thank you for the link. I enjoyed the lecture. He is very knowledgable, has a lot of bona-fides to back up his opinions, and I learned a few things from listening to him.
I hope he's correct because I don't think the climate-changers can ever win this battle. If the climate-changers are correct in their most pessimistic predictions, then mankind is in for a lot of suffering in the not-too-distant future.
I did a little background checking and there are a few points that may put a dent in his credibility.
He has received money from the fossil fuel industry to present his message.
The group he was lecturing to, the GWPF (Global Warming Policy Foundation) is essentially a lobbying group for the fossil fuel industry. They have repeatedly and steadfastly refused to identify their sources of funding.
In the lecture he bemoans the "politicization" of the climatology science, yet he eventually voices repeatedly, his own political slant.
So once again we are faced with a politicized agenda, purporting to be unbiased science. But is it? I don't think it is. It may be correct, or it may be incorrect in it's conclusions, but it is most definitely not unbiased.
We all have filters. We all too easily dismiss the science that doesn't jibe with our beliefs, and declare it "liberal" or "radical right wing". We choose to believe what we hear on CNN or FOX depending upon our beliefs going in, not swayed by the verbiage. We can dismiss the verbiage easily because it does not align with our hard-wired belief system.
This guy is no different. If you are a climate change denier then he makes great sense. If you are a believer in climate change then you can point to other equally qualified scientists who disagree with his conclusions, and say "see? I was right!"