And critical thinking requires stepping back and looking at something with unemotional honesty. Have you read any of the well-researched and well written commentary on the scientists who are invited to contribute to the IPCC report? Do you think it possible that the fact that no matter how well qualified, no skeptics are welcome among the scientists who develop the 'consensus' opinion and write those reports? Those who disagree are sort of invited out of the organization? Don't you think it possible that having such a built in bias will affect the conclusions and opinion included in those reports? And are you aware that every scientist who is writing those reports is being heavily funded by governments who promote global warming/climate change? Don't you think that merits even a little bit of a raised eyebrow?
Do you know that the IPCC Summary for Policymakers are not written by scientists though some participate in the process? But the Summary is generally a product of what the various countries' politicians are willing to accept in the report and therefore it is often something less than 'scientific'.
Accusing oil companies of funding skeptics to deny climate change is invariably specious as there is absolutely no evidence to support that. Oil companies do hire scientific groups, including those promoting AGW, to do studies almost always relative to EPA and similar agency regulations and requirements in advance of construction or oil exploration. But why would the oil companies support the skeptics to be skeptics? They are making out like bandits within the AGW religious fervor. I have a close family member who works for a major oil company who recently designed and built a beef fat rendering plant to convert beef fat to fuel--the total design, construction, and start up costs, mega millions, are being covered by we the taxpayers who will continue to cover the almost certain losses the company will incur running the plant. And when the taxpayer money runs out, the plant will simply be closed and scrapped as is happening to dozens of other 'green energy' companies that have been government funded. And because of AGW generated rules and regs, oil companies can charge a whole bunch more for products the people have to have regardless of price. Why would they want to screw that up? (And Tyson Foods is also benefitting because the government is buying the beef fat from them to supply to the plant.)
Ultimately, you have a lot of scientists who have staked their reputations and possibly their careers on the doctrine of AGW and they are also making out like bandits supporting the doctrine. They are unlikely to ever admit they have been wrong.
For those able to set aside the emotional knee jerk responses, attitudes, and assigned talking points on this subject, can understand and appreciate that stepping back and scrutinizing the whole big picture with a critical eye can do wonders for the truth.
In summary:
Governments have implemented fuel taxes on non-renewable energy sources and poured billions into constructing wind farms, and other “green” energy strategies, all in the name of reducing carbon emissions. If these scientists are eventually forced to admit that their climate change theories have been terribly mistaken, it will certainly be a very costly one; incalculable sums of money will have been wasted, and the reputation of the scientific community will be left in tatters. On this basis, what would be the incentive for the IPCC to ever confess they were wrong? (--James Fenner)
Read more at
IPCC Report in Doubt: Are Climate Change Skeptics “Dumb”?