Quote:


Certainly, 650 scientists from a world population of close to 7,000,000,000 must mean something.



The point of this eludes me. How is it different from the original UN Global Warming report?

Quote:


Asking New Zealand to comment on global warming would be akin to asking the University of Washington to weigh in on the BCS system for college football.



One of the most respected hurricane researchers in the US, Bill Gray, is based in the mountains of Colorado in the western US.

Science isn't like politics: science by acclaim is almost always bad science. Good science comes from theories that are poked at by smart people looking for weaknesses and glossed-over assumptions.

The most famous example is the Einstein vs. Bohr "gedanken" (thought) experiment debates over "does God play dice?" When experts at a high level have a serious go at each other's theories you get a lot of confidence in the results: that Bohr survived a strong effort by Einstein against indeterminacy was a huge step forward for Bohr's theory.

Much (not all!) of the objection to Global Warming theories would go away if it were subjected to the same kind of scientific debate as other scientific theories are, or required to meet the same kind of experimental verification as other scientific theories. Instead the entire thing has been moved into the political sphere, where consensus and unanimity are valued and questioning is considered disloyal.
_________________________
"If they can't picture me with a knife, forcing them to strip in an alley, I don't want any part of it. It's humiliating." - windsock