We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Finally, a critical mass of scientists are openly doubting the warming alarmists. It's about time. I don't think scientists are fraudulent: I think they develop enthusiasms for their opinions and their intricate computer models like regular humans, and, like regular humans, are reluctant to change their minds.
It's the politicians, bureaucrats, and warmist activists who are fraudulent. They are seeking $ and power out of this deal. I have nothing to gain either way, even though I do believe that some warming would overall be a benefit for humans, as it has been in the past.
Significant cooling would be the real threat to civilization.
And Ron, how can you trust the predictions of a 100-year computer model, which leaves out the medieval warm period entirely [oopsie], when our climatologists seem unable to predict weather accurately more than 48 hours ahead?
I clicked through to the APS site, which I thought you would have also, and found this, in red type, at the top of the article:
"The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions."
It's nice to see published dissent, but that's a pretty strong statement. It seems disenginuous to post this & to leave that out.
Sorry. I spoke too harshly. But, I would suggest that if publishing an article causes a firestorm of attacks in response, that would be a sign that scientific consensus & critical mass is still against it - even if they are wrong.