Researchers have encountered the Quaternary conundrum - "which is evidence suggesting that many of the estimated 1.5 million species on earth are in danger of extinction from global warming, yet over the past 2.5 million years little extinction is documented in fossil records."
Yup... they have a conundrum. Global warming alarmist want the sky to be falling, but it isn't happening.
One researcher at Case Western Reserve University says, "The simultaneous widespread and justified alarm over global warming and changes in biodiversity has induced both outstanding scientific research and deplorable pseudoscientific work."
The problem for us 'average-Joes' is to determine who is telling the truth, who has a special interest, and who is enjoying the hype.
My question - what does the researcher who propogates a finding have to gain by their report? More funding, more support, more attention, more hype? The more benefit to the 'scientists' involved in a report...the less credible they are to me.
What are your tests for credibility in researchers?
Comment Preview