Why do global warming believers dismiss good science from independent scientists?

Do you mean scientists, like Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Roy Spencer, Judith Curry, Freeman Dyson, Steven E. Koonin, Craig Loehle, Garth Paltridge, Denis Rancourt, Peter Stilbs, Philip Stotts, Hendrik Tennekes, and other eminent scientists, well because they won't toe the line, and accept the so called unscientific concensus, they prefer to search for the truth.

Kano’s list of scientists shows pretty clearly the denier problem, they keep claiming they have all these climate scientists but look at the lists they produce and they can’t back the claim.

Freeman Dyson (91) - theoretical physicist and mathematician in the fields of quantum electrodynamics, solid-state physics, astronomy and nuclear engineering.

Steven E. Koonin - a theoretical physicist

Craig Loehle - ecologist, In 2004, published a study concluding that "global and northern hemisphere temperature will drop on century scale in the next 20 years. Simply has not happened.

Denis Rancourt - professor of physics in this field http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Rancourt#Scient...

No published work in climate science.

Philip Stotts - professor emeritus of biogeography, claims to be a member of no group or organisation that would affect his independence yet is the scientific adviser to the GWPF a UK denier group.

Hendrik Tennekes - Professor of Aeronautical Engineering

John Christy certainly is a climate scientist, his published work (with Roy Spencer) on satellite temperatures is one deniers still reference, yet Christy has said he was wrong on this research a point denier continually neglect to mention when they reference it.

As for your question, what “good science” would that be, I note lots of deniers answering, one has a cartoon is that what denier call “good science” 99% of denial is not based on any published science, but blogs and independently published books, for the simply reason deniers are trying to convince the public and they have no real science that can pass scientific scrutiny. What you call “the so called unscientific consensus” is actually based on decades of published scientific papers, thousands of papers by many thousands of scientists, which I also note you fail to mention.

Because so far, 'independent' scientists who don't agree that climate change is real tend to have pockets heavy with cash from the like of the Koch Brothers and other wealthy people who would be harmed if we were to try to stop the biggest causes of climate change.

Because so far, 'independent' scientists against the concept of climate change don't really seem to have much of an argument.

When a truly independent scientist with actual good science shows up with actual science to prove that climate change might not be man made or as severe as we think it is. We'll consider them.

Until then. They're in the same batch as the daily buzz.

They don't, but I'd like to know how you define "independent scientist.

Let's see their data! How about having their data and collection method they used to collect that data peer reviewed! Just saying the 'other guy' is wrong doesn't cut it. Science is data, and a lot of it... it isn't 'belief' or opinion.

There's only one kind of science, the one you don't fix for your purpose.

What is an "independent" scientist? I don't even know what that means. What is a "dependent" or "not independent" scientist?

All published science research contributes to the advancement of human understanding, some more than others because some is seen as not credible by other researchers. The importance of research is measured by how often it is cited in later research.

If you are asking why unpublished bloggers are ignored, it is because they are ranting without scientific discipline. The science journals are where serious research is shared between scientists.

That is what Hippy Liberals do......and not just in the area of Climate Science. When they cannot support an agenda with common sense or facts and are confronted with that, they resort to character assassination. Simply put, they are not able to grow a pair and admit they are wrong.

They don't. They weigh all the evidence and theory. There is always some doubt and some skepticism, but no basis at all for claiming "no warming" or "no problem".

They don't, but I'd like to know how you define "independent scientist."