Your statements create the implication that the Hal Lewis, the author of this piece, is being paid by someone to intentionally spread misinformation. Is this a misreading? For while he may be scientifically wrong, I wouldn't make this accusation lightly.
According to the article the last straw for him, was that he obtained 200 signatures from members of the APS (all scientists) asking for the creation of a group to look at Climate Science. These 200 presumably thought there was room or need for debate. Given your "few"/"many" construction, I have to wonder: how many of these were being paid off and by whom?
True of course, but I meant "does the fact that he is a physicist and not a climatologist affect the implication that he is being funded to spread disinformation?". The original article does not proclaim any particular theory on Global Warming. Rather, it criticizes the process by which science is being politicized. This strikes me as a matter for which any scientist should be allowed to speak.
I take offense at the notion that anyone who would want to question the process can be presumed to be acting out of pecuniary interest rather than a desire to find truth. So I ask again: Daniel, are you claiming that Hal Lewis and at least some of the 200 people who signed his petition are being paid to do so?
APS is an organization that publishes papers in the field of Physics. not "climatology" (which really sounds like astrology to me.) He is a physicist.
You may not be aware of it, but much of the relevant work in the area of the global climate is being done by Physicists. Not all, of course, but Physics is a pretty relevant field.
Your statements create the implication that the Hal Lewis, the author of this piece, is being paid by someone to intentionally spread misinformation. Is this a misreading? For while he may be scientifically wrong, I wouldn't make this accusation lightly.
According to the article the last straw for him, was that he obtained 200 signatures from members of the APS (all scientists) asking for the creation of a group to look at Climate Science. These 200 presumably thought there was room or need for debate. Given your "few"/"many" construction, I have to wonder: how many of these were being paid off and by whom?