Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Government to scientist 'here's a million dollar grant. Tell us about global warming. Scientist presents a report that we will be on fire in 20 years.
Government to scientist 'here's a million dollars grant. Tell us about global cooling. Scientist presents a report that people in Miami will be wearing overcoats in July in 20 years.
It's all about the money.
Government to scientist 'here's a million dollar grant. Tell us about global warming. Scientist presents a report that we will be on fire in 20 years.
Government to scientist 'here's a million dollars grant. Tell us about global cooling. Scientist presents a report that people in Miami will be wearing overcoats in July in 20 years.
It's all about the money.
Ok, good, I can clarify another misconception with experience.
I used to work for the EPA office that gave out grants to universities. We did not have nearly that amount of money to give out to anyone, much less to to climate change. There were a few million dollar grants we gave out, those were to multiple universities, and most of those were either for asthma research or water pollution issues. The Climate change research program was not any larger than any other scientific discipline. The other agencies that give out money to climate change scientists have similar stories: NOAA funds some research as does NSF. Again, climate change research funding is no larger than any of their programs. You might as well say: "Those Algal Bloom Researchers: It's all about the money for them!"
When a scientist does get money from the government, it pays part of his or her salary, but it doesn't necessarily increase it (sometimes it does help them get out of teaching obligations, which they like). The grant is paying for part of the scientists time while they are working on the grant. Some of the grant money goes to support grad students (which helps them graduate faster), some of the money goes right to the university for overhead (e.g. paper and secretary costs), and some money goes to equipment. Believe me, no climate scientist is getting rich from a government grant.
When a government agency does fund research, they issue a Request for Proposals. If it's NSF, the requests are pretty open: anyone can apply for funding. EPA and NOAA grants are more directed so as to complement internal programs. Still, there's no NOAA request that says "Tell us about Global Warming".
If you're going into research, and you're looking to support yourself with a lot of research money, go into biomed research. There's so much more money available from government, non-profit and for-profit organizations. Climate change: you've gotta just love your job for its intrinsic benefits.
That should be obvious; the creation of a new sector of bureaucracy, not answerable to the rules of the markets and staffed by friends of the supposed illuminatii who subsrcribe to the "global warming" advocacy.
Ok, that was a lot circular logic. What is the purpose of the scheme? Why are liberals creating this bureaucracy?
Was watching 'Frozen Planet' on Discovery. Episode narrated by Alec Baldwin. I'm imagining at a production meeting. 'Alec, we have something to tell you before you take this project. Every 6 months alternating between the north and south poles, additional millions of square miles of ice form and it gets very thick. And Alec says 'There's ice on this planet?'
Here is NASA on the subject....Everyone knows NASA is controlled by liberals.
FOX has lots of experts on the Global Warming fraud like Palin and Limbaugh, Hannity.
That's why I'm so informed on the subject of Global Warming. I listen to FOX not NASA, or the vast overwhelming majority of scientist that have expertise in the subject.
Here is NASA on the subject....Everyone knows NASA is controlled by liberals.
FOX has lots of experts on the Global Warming fraud like Palin and Limbaugh, Hannity.
That's why I'm so informed on the subject of Global Warming. I listen to FOX not NASA, or the vast overwhelming majority of scientist that have expertise in the subject.
"By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Paul Ehrlich 1971
Regardless of long term trends, such as the return of an Ice Age, unsettled weather conditions now appear more likely than those of the abnormally favorable period which ended in 1972. – Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society - October 10, 1975
A RECENT flurry of papers has provided further evidence for the belief that the Earth is cooling. There now seems little doubt that changes over the past few years are more than a minor statistical fluctuation – Nature - March 6, 1975
Scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. – The Cooling World Newsweek, April 28, 1975
“Scientist ponder why World’s Climate is changing; a major cooling is considered to be inevitable – New York Times May 21, 1975
This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. -- Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976
An international team of specialists has concluded from eight indexes of climate that there is no end in sight to the cooling trend of the last 30 years, at least in the Northern Hemisphere. - New York Times - January 5, 1978
We also accept plate tectonics now. We even found a whole new domain of life: the Monera bacteria. Gone are the days of the 5 kingdoms! What's your point? That knowledge advances? Yes, yes it does. We know things now that we didn't know 50 years ago.
Scientific advances didn't stop since you left elementary school.
I'm going to side with 94% of all scientists...and 100% of meteorologists on this one.
I'm really sad that there is such a disconnect between the scientific community (to whom anthropogenic global warming is a fact, not a controversy) and the general public. But I'm working to bridge the gap as best I can. If anyone has tips, let me know.
You were about to post a link to a study proving a connection between man's activities and Global Whatever, weren't you?
What do you believe is the cause of global warming?
Natural heating and cooling of the Earth. Not man made.
What natural event is causing the warming?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
