<The fact that scientists get paid to be scientists is hardly the same as political science majors getting paid to write editorials attacking scientific results. You can't transform an apple into an orange.

The issue is not that scientists get paid. The fact is that all else being equal, they get paid more by the system if they are pro-warming than if they are not. This doesn't make them crooks, or even deliberate falsifiers of data. But you must admit that it could influence their outlook on the subject, or tend to weed out more skeptical scientists from the debate.

The verdict that global warming is real came out of that rigorous process. The emerging verdict that global warming is caused predominantly by human actions comes with the same strong credibility.



The denial of global warming is based on nothing more than ideology and wishful thinking.



And this doesn't strike you as a biased viewpoint? I can find as many or more credentialed scientists who will say there is no human connection to any current climate changes, or at least admit they don't know and can't prove that humans are causing climate change. Heck, this was the consensus in one of the original global warming reports, except that the scientists chosen to write the summary changed it to a more certain accusation of humanity.

And don't forget the politics.

An exercise for the student: find one, single, suggested solution given by environmentalists to ANY well-known environmental problem that does not include as its major feature an increase in the power of centralized government and a decrease in individual freedom. Just one.