Re: Doesn't the GWPF take
"The reason you are madly scrambling around for motives is because you do not want to look at the science."
It is you making the assumptions, I am afraid. Specifically you are making the assumption that just because I did not post something 100% supporting and welcoming these findings I am therefore dismissing them due to having a position on the whole global warming issue.
I would love to look at and fully understand the science but that is not possible in all cases as any of the science that is of any real use is of necessity beyond my meagre intellect given the time I do not have available to devote to it.
So like the majority of people, even the commentards of the Register, I am to a large extent reliant on the presentation of the science and part of the presentation as far as I am concerned includes the source.
When a political body starts out with a stated aim and then funds or publishes science that supports or can be plausibly presented as supporting that aim then I find myself unable to avoid questioning if the science does in fact support that aim quite so strongly and fully as it appears.
This, as has been pointed out above, applies to both sides of this tediously polarised "debate".
Each side presents their own science as exhaustive and definitive, each rubbishes the science of the other as insufficient or flawed.
Normally one might rely on the scientific consensus but for this topic "consensus" appears to be a dirty word, hotly debated in itself.