Silly skeptics!

I want to play tennis tomorrow morning. It's raining so I went to check the weather to see if it would be clear tomorrow. Good news: it should be. So, I scrolled down a little (in retrospect, probably a mistake) and I saw this headline: "What Are Climate Change Skeptics Still Skeptical About?" Well, I can answer for myself: alot! I couldn't help clicking the link, though. I don't have time to deconstruct the whole stupid article. But, on the whole, let us note that it is an exercise in rhetoric, not science. It is a well executed exercise in rhetoric and uses many of the standard devices of that art, for example, the reluctant convert. The article also spends time discussing the arguments against the theory of catastrophic, anthropomorphic global warming -- each briefly -- and then "refuting" them at some length. Standard straw man bullsh1t: you merely outline your opponents' side before giving the favored side a full and sympathetic treatment. Oh, and this was cute, each skeptical argument that they reviewed had a single person associated with it in the article which they quoted. They usually threw in some discrediting tidbits about the skeptic as well. The overall impression left is that there are a few clever kooks out there that are confusing the public and confounding the veritable armies of responsible scientists. But, here's the part that finally raised the temperature of my globe enough to get me blogging a response:

A staggering 95 percent of people who reported being "disengaged," "doubtful" or "dismissive" of global warming had no idea that 97 percent of publishing climate scientists believe global warming is happening and that it is caused by humans.

Heh, heh, there's almost always a slip-up in their over-reaching conclusion. Here's the thing: probably a very large percentage of these climate scientists owe their jobs to the alarmism surrounding the theory of catastrophic, anthropomorphic global warming (CAGwa*). We all understand how one's livelihood may affect their opinions when they're in business. The article makes several references to the fossil fuel industry based precisely on that understanding. Well, newsflash: the conclusions of climate scientists may also be affected by the direct results that those opinions may have on their business. ... And, if that wasn't enough, they are further qualified as "publishing" climate scientists. Though, it's well known that the CAGwa cabal works to ensure that papers not supporting the theory are squashed and that climate scientists submitting the same are punished.  

So, "dismissive" I remain. 

* I hate to use all the adjectives, and hence, the acronym. But, it is necessary to not shorten it to "global warming", lest one be turned into a straw-man who won't even admit the minor warming of the last half century.