The difference is that they are obviously correct and the denier moron Trumptards are wrong. It's those damn facts again. Trumptards like Trump just hate them.
Minor greenhouse Gases, starting with carbon dioxide. Lol. Where did those 300 scientists get their degrees from, again?
In Total. I am wondering if , adding up all the grants, to all scientists from governments amd groups - who are usually, to put it mildly, climate change advocates- compared with the grants goliven by oil companies, which would ne the larger?
A true scientist is not an advocate of anything. A scientist makes observations, tests conjectures, states hypotheses and tests those for validity. No climate scientist goes into the field with preconceived assumptions in the same way as no bioscientist start performing research with the conviction that there is a gay gone. Nor do astronomers search for ET. The problem with the current social climate is that the base assumption is that everything is dumbed down to the level of farmers and rednecks who just don't know better. That does not make everyone a redneck or farmer. Yes, farmers and rednecks have an equal vote but they still live education, skill, and experience wise way inferior lives to people who worked hard in their life to reach achievements in the arts, sciences, or as leaders in business or society. The same people who believes he is better than everyone else attends rallies to convince farmers and rednecks and the retarded portion of Christians that he is their voice and that they are equally valuable to society and that their demands must be met. Yet truth be told, their contribution to society is immeasurably smaller than the rest.
The problem in "climate science" today is that your funding as a "scientist" is driven by a grant with an expected result of your research. And the "results" of your research better match the expected results desired by the sponsor if you ever expect to get more funding from that source. Climate Science is completely politicized and completely lacks any scientific integrity. Which is sad because it undermines all science.
Not denying there are black sheep. Though a majority of established scientists seem to have chosen their career and field according to a higher calling than being abused for political purposes. Else they would have chosen to become bankers if they cared about money and power. I want to believe that the majority of scientists in this field are rather honest than publish false finding for the sake of agreeing with the source of funding. 300 alleged scientists who may deny global man-made warming are a drop in the bucket compared with those who are empirically convinced of the opposite.
Actually if you take a look at the split of scientists regarding AGW it is closer to 50-50. The majority of scientists do not want to speak up about the political pressure and grant process abuse because they would lose both their jobs and their grants. This has already happened to the few scientists who spoke up - they were made an example of. So others would not mess with the climate cabal. At this point "climate science" has stepped over the line. It is no longer a science but a political movement dedicated to stamping out all heretics.