I'm super excited to see how this turns out!
One interesting and useful data point: @DavidSchechter asked me for the name of a TX scientist to give them a skeptical perspective on the science. I said I didn't know of any & I told him he would have to go out of state.
I suggested he ask some conservative think tanks, like @TPPF. I'm not sure what he did, but — OF COURSE — in the end he fished through the recycle bin of climate science to pull out one of the usual suspects, John Christy
Read about him here:
Read about him here:
For those who question the 97% consensus, ask yourself why it is that every time someone wants a "skeptical scientist", they turn to the EXACT SAME half dozen scientists they always talk to (e.g., Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Curry, ...).
It is clear to me that 97% undersells the actual level of consensus in the expert scientific community. If 3% of the community disagreed with the mainstream view, there should be a few credible skeptics in TX. There are ZERO.
I should point out that a skeptical scientist in TX would be treated like a god by the TX legislature. You'd be feted by the TX political class as the Great Savior & you'd be the go-to guy every time a politician said climate change wasn't a problem.
The fact that so many scientists are unwilling to adopt skeptical viewpoints, despite the obvious benefits, should tell you that the motivation of scientists is not fame & influence. Scientists main motivation is being right.
