Where's your scientist side? Mine looks for the best scientific information and a good place to start is with the US National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society, probably the two top scientific establishments on the planet. They have plenty of guides to the science for the public, see http://nas-sites.org/americasclimat...te-change/climate-change-evidence-and-causes/. Another good site is at the American Institute of Physics where Spencer Weart has placed the text of his scientific history of The Discovery of Global Warming (also available in print). http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htmThe historical record shows that climate is cyclic. Local records show it's cyclic. Government records show it's cyclic. Why was the name changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"? Could it be the polarization of the phrase? Everything happens for a reason. Why would there be government funding to research Global Warming in a cooling phase of this cycle?
The cynical side of me is firmly entrenched that "politics" drove the name change. The human side of me is firmly entrenched in the cyclic nature of the climate.
I was only showing that it was possible for scientific 'contrarian' research to get funding from a variety of sources. The result of this research is also interesting. You don't get to be a professor of physics at Berkeley without knowing how to do scientific research.On the issue of private funding, just like you, the Koch brothers can fund whatever research they choose. Where they put their money is their business. Are you saying there are no private funds in the non-skeptic camp? Should they not be treated the same as the skeptic camp?
I had no idea who he was, but Google tells me he is involved with Greenpeace. I prefer to stick with scientists for advice, not activists.Does Kert Davies get a free pass or do you think he is pursuing an agenda?