> > "If you -- or Michaels -- wants some credence in the scientific community, then you have to do some actual research, you have to have some actual data, and you have to get it peer-reviewed."
> This happens all the time, but you don't hear about it, because they are against the scientific consensus
Supporting evidence please? Please give some examples that "happen all the time" but "we haven't heard about".
Frankly, you sound like a conspiracy nutter. Please provide some counter-examples to support your case.
I'm not going to play that game. If I gave you a list of papers to counter man made global warming, you'd say "they are sponsored by big oil" or "those scientists are shunned by the scientific community".
How about this, I think the burden of evidence should be for proving man made global warming. Has it been done? No, it hasn't, despite all the "consensus" noise. Buried under all the "concensus" you'll simply find computer models. Computer models that don't even agree with each other, of impossibly complicated systems.
> This happens all the time, but you don't hear about it, because they are against the scientific consensus
Supporting evidence please? Please give some examples that "happen all the time" but "we haven't heard about".
Frankly, you sound like a conspiracy nutter. Please provide some counter-examples to support your case.