I want to make it clear that I'm not saying that the argument from authority is always a logical fallacy. If the authority appealed to is an expert in a certain field, then it's an argument one should take seriously. But the conventional wisdom has often been proven wrong, and human beings are still fallible.
In the Stossel video a couple of the scientists state they were members of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and that the governments who nominate people for the panel nominated many who are not scientists but instead are people with a political agenda, such as Greenpeace activists. They also say that when the IPCC climate change report came out, they did not agree with it and were not shown anything which they then could sign so as to indicate their agreement or not. One of them even resigned after he was included in the list of panel members who agreed with the "consensus", even though he DID NOT. Can we not now see the political rather then the scientific motivation going on here? Why the need to lie and commit such fraud if the science behind global warming theory is so strong?
Cork recently left a comment at my post on James Randi. He linked to a site that critiqued Randi's post. One section I want to highlight is the following:
First, Randi equates the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which says humans are causing dangerous global warming with the Petition Project, which is a petition signed by “scientists” that say they don’t think so.
Putting the two on equal footing is just wrong.
The IPCC is comprised of 2,500 scientists versed in climate science that rigorously peer-review all the scientific literature on climate change every 5 years. Their reports represent the gold standard, take it to the bank science on global warming.
But apparently, at least according to some scientists who were actually part of the IPCC, not all of those people are scientists either! Funny how that isn't mentioned. Now, who is it that heads the IPCC panel? A climatologist, surely! Perhaps you've never heard of him. Let me introduce you. His name is Rajendra K. Pachauri.
Although Dr Pachauri is often presented as a scientist (he was even once described by the BBC as “the world’s top climate scientist”), as a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics he has no qualifications in climate science at all.-Questions over business deals of UN climate change guru Dr Rajendra Pachauri
Hmmm, imagine the reaction of the climate changers if the head of a "denialist" panel was described as a "top climate scientist" and was then exposed as having a PhD in an unrelated field. Imagine the further indignation if that person had a huge economic interest in proving the position he was advocating for.
What has also almost entirely escaped attention, however, is how Dr Pachauri has established an astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC’s policy recommendations. -(from the above link)
See also AGW Guru Pachauri is Economist, not Climate Scientist .
As Hot Air says:
Why did the UN pick a former railway engineer with no background in climate science to lead its effort on AGW? Clearly, Pachauri was selected for his influence rather than his scientific expertise.
Climategate exposed the chicanery of AGW science at East Anglia CRU, including the attempts to hide contradictory data and smear critics. This exposes a critical conflict of interest in the UN effort built on the CRU’s data. In that sense, Pachauri might be the perfect pick to lead the effort. It’s all about economics, not the climate or science at all. It’s an excuse to impose a massive transfer of wealth from developed nations to Third World dictatorships, and people like Pachauri have positioned themselves to get rich on the transactions.
Notice the children at the beginning of the above video? Where did they get such ideas? Could it be from the state indoctrination centers called schools and from the statist lapdog mainstream media? Naw, couldn't be!
Below is a video of the opening film for the Copenhagen summit. There is a good reason a terrified child is at the center of this piece of propaganda. It's about "pester power".
In the US, environmental education in schools has, for more than a decade, been systematically providing children with authority over certain adults. The New York Times reports that ‘eco-kids’ devoted to green values ‘try to hold their parents accountable at home’, and notes that adults become defensive under the ‘watchful eye of the pint-sized eco-police’
As Frank Furedi also says: By transmitting their values to children, the scaremongers hope to channel children’s indignation into hostility towards older generations that are apparently destroying the planet. In the Copenhagen video we hear a child talking about her ‘anger’. When she says ‘I am only a child’, the implication is clear: adults have let children down.- Turning children into Orwellian eco-spies