Roger wrote:

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:


Since when has lack of funding stopped publication in peer reviewed
journals?

Christ...because the experimentation is costly. You can't do cosmic
ray flux measurements with a Blue Peter approach.

But these 15000 are the bulk of the 17000 you claimed were already involved.

You don't understand hoe scientific funding works, do you?

You bid for projects. Many times, the projects aren't what you would
like to work on, but you need an income so you work on something else.

Just because 15000 climate scientists arent working on e.g.
atmospeheric aerosols, doesn't mean that they don't have a view on it,
or any other research in the climate-change game.

Hence, simply because they aren't funded for a particular topic,
doesn't mean that they can't speak on it.

And guess where the big money is going?

Argumentum ad populem. No place in science.

"An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is
a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because
many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it
is so.""

Not exactly appropriate to my opinion of the majority wanting to live in
warmth rather than cold but entirely appropriate to the dedicated band
of fundamentalist denyers who refuse to accept the possibility of
climate change.

It's entirely appropriate.