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.
By using more expensive technologies that will raise electricity rates sky high, he makes more people dependent on Government, which is his ultimate goal.
And he uses AGW/Climate change/disruption as his weapon of choice.
In this recycled rehash of 'facts' they could only get 15 of of the Cato Institute's '100 top climate change deniers' to sign on.
I still can't figure out who sponsored or wrote it as it published straight to scibd.com and not to any organization or individual's site.
Ouch, that pretty much settles it, this is a thread fail.
Yep, find an article that digs up cherry picked dirt against any skeptical scientists who dare to voice their opinion against the dominant orthodoxy but when Climate Gate hit and we had actual emails from your scientists who were openly conspiring to manipulate data and marginalize dissenters, that was met with apologies and excuses from your camp.
So basically, If a skeptic scientist has any skeletons in their closet they are quickly found and held up as a reason why their arguments and their opinions should be immediately invalidated.
If a warmist scientist has any skeletons in their closet, excuses and apologies are made and you tie yourselves up into pretzel shapes to tell everyone that this will never invalidate their arguments or opinions.
Yep. I knew it wouldn't take long for people to start Googling the names to start smearing the authors as opposed to arguing the issue that they've raised and articulated.
You offer as "evidence" a "scientific" report involving a religionist and you really expect that to fly? Really?
Quote:
Originally Posted by voiceofreazon
“As independent scientists, we know that apparent evidence of ‘Climate Change,’ however scary, is not proof of anything, Science derives its objectivity from robust logic and honest evidence repeatedly tested by all knowledgeable scientists, not just those paid to support the administration’s version of ‘Global Warming,’ ‘Climate Change,’ ‘Climate Disruption,’ or whatever their marketing specialists call it today."
I suspect the Koch brothers paid for this scribble that you present a a rebuttal of the IPCC. They've been known to do that, as everyone knows. The IPCC's peer-reviewed report was signed by nearly a thousand scientists. Your "report" has fifteen signatories, or 1.5% of the IPCC report, and God only knows these characters were likely found in their Mom's basement, tap tap tapping away on the WebTV devices..
Quote:
Originally Posted by voiceofreazon
I already did
Obama's Budget Puts Climate Change Front and Center
Yes, a whopping increase of 1/2 of 1 percent ($14 million dollars). Less than keeping up with inflation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by voiceofreazon
Yep, find an article that digs up cherry picked dirt against any skeptical scientists who dare to voice their opinion against the dominant orthodoxy but en Climate Gate hit and we had actual emails from your scientists who were openly conspiring to manipulate data and marginalize dissenters, that was met with apologies and excuses from your camp.
So basically, If a skeptic scientist has any skeletons in their closet they are quickly found and held up as a reason why their arguments and their opinions should be immediately invalidated.
If a warmist scientist has any skeletons in their closet, excuses and apologies are made and you tie yourselves up into pretzel shapes to tell everyone that this will never invalidate their arguments or opinions.
Got it
That's a serious accusation, so I have to assume you base this on fact. So, where are your facts to support your claim?
But thank you for finally admitting your data is worthless: that clown doesn't have skeletons in his closet, he's got a cemetery.
I got this far and realized that it is hogwash... The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and has been known as such since the 19th century is not an assumption...
Climate research doesn't pay well, the amount of money dedicated to it has been shrinking, and if the researchers were successful in convincing the public that climate change was a serious threat, the response would be to give money to someone else. If you come across someone arguing that scientists are in it for the money, then you can probably assume they are willing to make arguments without getting their facts straight. If climate scientists are in it for the money, they’re doing it wrong | Ars Technica
Which is more likely to be true:
A. A scientist produces a study on a problem that indicates a global threat. The scientist is given a grant to further study the issue.
B. A scientist produces a study on a problem that indicates it is naturally occurring event and is of no real consequence. The scientist is given a grant to further study the issue.
Which is more likely to be true:
A. A politician gets a study on a problem whose solution will put an order of magnitude more power into his hands than he has now and will give him a huge amount of media attention for fixing that problem. The politician promotes this problem as a matter of grave national concern.
B. A politician gets a study on a problem that shows no government authority is necessary and the problem requires no media attention centered on people highlighting the issue. The politician decides that furthering his own re-election chances by gaining fame for taking a prominent position on the issue would serve no real purpose and decides to move on.
Frankly, one would have to be blind as a bat not to see that climate change offers the same potential for media attention and money today that the military industrial complex did during the Cold War.
Yep, find an article that digs up cherry picked dirt against any skeptical scientists who dare to voice their opinion against the dominant orthodoxy...
So basically, If a skeptic scientist has any skeletons in their closet they are quickly found and held up as a reason why their arguments and their opinions should be immediately invalidated.
I didn't cherry pick. I looked up the first 'scientist' on the list and he turned out to be a guy who believes that God keeps, and will keep, the climate in perfect balance for man. This isn't an irrelevant skeleton in the closet like an illegitimate child or a drunk driving conviction - this is fundamental to dismissing his claim to be a scientist analyzing facts.
Fact checking = cherry picking anything and everything that can be used to discredit a theory you disagree with by smearing the authors or the publisher, rather than actually addressing the argument raised. Pretty common tactic here on CD
It's not "smearing" someone to understand and state the context of that person's VIEWS.
It must be remembered that your link is an OPINION piece - that's it - JUST AN OPINION. Now that it's been mentioned that the guy has - well to put it politely "unconventional" views on weather and climate, it simply puts the article in context. Nothing wrong with that. People can decide for themselves if they want to be much credence in other opinions about climate.
Me? I don't think so. He's free to have an opinion, it's just not worth anything.
I suspect the Koch brothers paid for this scribble that you present a a rebuttal of the IPCC.
That's a serious accusation, so I have to assume you base this on fact. So, where are your facts to support your claim?
HYPOCRISY! It's a beautiful thing, isn't it?
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.
