[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Interesting, but fallacious analysis.

First of all, as a retired professor of medicine at a NY university, I was neither "passed over" nor hate learned people. But it does mean I know how the academic system works.

You see, there are politically correct studies and those that are not-----the "correct" studies get the grant money. If you don't believe that, you are naive, and I suggest that you apply for a federal grant to do a study proving that global warming is completely independent of human activity. Rotsa ruck. So therefore, 90%+ of grant money goes to studies "proving" humans are the cause of global warming---and the more immediate and catastrophic, the better. Then, as even this thread proves, the acolytes come out of the woodwork claiming "90+% of climate scientists agree that global warming is caused by man"---no kidding, it is a foregone conclusion that would be touted.

Continuing the narrative, who gets published? Those who do studies, and the studies are done by those that have taken the federal grants to "prove" humans cause global warming. Then who gets tenure? Answer, those who publish.

Now, one might question why the powers that be want to push a false narrative on the public. The answer is simple---$139 TRILLION to comply with the Paris accords---which the US couldn't rush there quick enough to sign. Follow the money.

Bottom line, except for retired climatologists and those few that get grants from private foundations, it would be professional suicide for a climatologist to claim anything other than anthropomorphic climate change.

Now does everyone understand??????

Thank you for your answer to my question. I guess you will have to count me among the billions of naive who still believe that the majority is still more likely to be true. I don't doubt your experience, but I have a harder time doubting my own experience and seeing the evidence first hand throughout my lifelong travels worldwide.