Here’s another document (German scientists using thermodynamics) claiming the IPCC are scientific liars and political hustlers. It’s a 100+ page pdf document. You don’t need to plow through all of the details – just read to Abstract and the conclusions/summary starting on page 90 (section 4.3.3).
The reason they don't want you to "plow through all the details" is because it is immediately obvious that the guy is talking gibberish. Of course, if you only read the abstract and the summary, you wouldn't know that; you would assume he is a competent scientist rather than a propaganda hack.
How about the ones that say "we are scientists, not you, so trust us and don't bother thinking for yourself." Just as bad as the hacks, and often more dishonest, because a lot of them use their credentials as a shield assuming that most people are lazy and won't challenge them. They are the reason for a lot of the sketpicism and therefore their own fault if no one trusts them because of that superior attitude. The boy who cried wolf met his end while screaming about the real wolf that was really devouring him, because he had told so many lies before that no one believed him. At the same time, it's an old trick to "baffle 'em with BS" when you really don't know what you are talking about, by overwhelming your opponent with too many technical details to consider. But that doesn't fly these days, with all of the electronic data-access tools at our disposal. It becomes a lot easier (and necessary) for us to think for ourselves. If it is important enough to get all heated up about (not a GW pun) than it is incumbent to read and study more than just "I trust the scientists, they are scientists afterall" to settle the argument in your mind.
So, regardless of whether GW is or is not caused by man, and regardless of your personal beliefs one way or the other, try to look at THIS independently and tell me it wouldn't jade your view against ANY truth in the matter, for or against, facts or no facts. (below is an expansion of my early sarcastic not-so-sarcastic remark, with tongue firmly in cheek)...
Al Gore, we love you! You were robbed of the election in Florida. You won an Oscar and a Nobel for your movie about a book about a slideshow about GW that someone asked you to give, so I will believe anything you say and promise to feel guilty about my personal contribution to GW. I don't care about all of the tree lights at your mansion or your frequent travel in private jets, because you are my messiah, and thank you for providing a way to be absolved of my guilt through purchasing carbon offsets from your companies. I know those trees would be planted anyway, but if I pay for it out of my guilt rather than the evil timber companies, then the spirit of gaia will bless me through you, her humble servant.
Lord Monckton. You are not "my" lord. What's with titles? A throwback to monarchies and aristocracy? We have moved way beyond that. I suppose you think you are special because you wrote an advisory letter to the PM. What got up your butt that you had to make such a stink about a little documentary? How much personal energy did you waste getting it banned? It just infuriates me to the end that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. You are no scientist. I read your bio in Wikipedia. You write sudoku books, for Gore's sake! What kind of expert does that make you on GW?Go ahead and hate, if you don't understand the absurdity I am trying to convey, and not the GW debate itself. Sometimes it is important to understand how people can become polarized one way or another in an argument, sometimes seemingly against common sense or the obvious. KeithBC even mentioned it can be something as shallow as not wanting to be told not to drive a gas guzzler.
