[ajross]

Item 2 is just wrong. Even something as (comparatively) well understood as an El Niño event causes wilding differing effects from region to region. Every time a scientist goes on TV to explain this stuff, they have to explain this very point: local measurements don't cut it, you have to look at and correlate very complicated global data sets. Apparently you didn't listen becuase of...

Item 1, which seems to me to be a completely unsubstantiated ad hominem. You could use that same argument to reject any science you don't want to hear.

[waxman]

You're incorrectly using the term "ad hominem." An ad hominem argument is when you try to invalidate an idea with an irrelevant personal attack. The problematic incentives facing climate change scientists are certainly relevant to their research. I'm not saying we should dismiss their data necessarily, but I am calling into question their motivations. Would we be skeptical of public health research on smoking funded by a tobacco company? I hope so. But just because they would have strong incentives to produce a particular outcome doesn't mean their science is wrong, but it could very well be biased. Same here.