As another poster linked to you earlier, there's a petition with 17,000 names of scientists on it that says global warming as man-made phenomenon is bunk. That's evidence against claims that "a majority of scientists" buy into it. We have yet to see evidence to support that claim. This isn't ideology, it's disdain for ideological perversion of objective science.
If it were all about funding, there must be elements who are idealogically bent to disprove global warming, say factories or corporations who would be forced to reduce their emissions. Scientists who want to secure research funding for something, anything, would have no problem working for them. So where are these scientists?
I think it's pretty clear why there are no such elements. First, any study by an invested entity (such as a vehicle manufacturer or an energy company) would be discarded out of hand. Would you take the word of a tobacco company scientist who said smoking causes no harm? Secondly, ideology-warped science doesn't work that way, that there should be equal incentives to prove and disprove. If you've disproven global warming, what are the chances of getting a follow-up research grant, for something you've shown not to exist? Who researches the nonexistent? On the other hand, if you aim to show proof of global warming, then there can always be a follow up.
I hope by this point you can understand why I (and I would guess many others here if not most, but I will speak only for myself) am sick and tired of debunking the man-made global warming hypothesis for the umpteenth time. How much time have I spent on this, when you haven't even presented a single piece of evidence in support of it?
That's no evidence at all if 17,000 are a minority of scientists. We need to look at percentages, not absolute numbers.
think it's pretty clear why there are no such elements. First, any study by an invested entity (such as a vehicle manufacturer or an energy company) would be discarded out of hand.
Not if it goes against what people are experiencing. Not if it goes against what other disciplines (say biologists, or oceanographers who map ocean currents) are reporting.
How much time have I spent on this, when you haven't even presented a single piece of evidence in support of it?
You have not presented a single piece of evidence that proves global warming ISN'T real. Unless you are a specialist, I don't attach much weight to your arguments. I don't mean this as an insult. I'm saying that only specialists are qualifed to judge. I'm no specialist either, and that is why I was posting the link to the specialist's explanation. I specifically asked a Freeper, knowing that his political agenda doesn't lean left.