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.
Despite the warmers message of doom and apocalypse, critically thinking people gave them the brush off. Seems the warmers have been crying wolf all to long and they got shellacked as well.
The only good thing about the GOP winning the midterms is it will put the brakes on the whole AGW thing. If Republican voters would drop the Hispanophobia and the obsession with austerity, I would vote for the GOP for this issue alone
Despite the warmers message of doom and apocalypse, critically thinking people gave them the brush off. Seems the warmers have been crying wolf all to long and they got shellacked as well.
"lets do something about global warming". Should be a law that all solar panels and materials in them must be manufactured with solar energy. That would price them beyond subsidies.
Yeah and the fact that there are tens of BILLIONS of dollars in funding money YEARLY predicated on more alarmist predictions and "science" doesn't factor into your ill informed opinion, does it?
Once again, if science is corrupt and for sale, it's naive and stupid to think that only the skeptical scientists can be sell outs.
You didn't read any of the links and simply reposted one of the generic denialist responses you always post in order to avoid thinking.
So yes, science requires money. I don't know where you get your BILLIONS from, but if you ignore the opportunists with no scientific background whatsoever on both sides, you will find not only that your side has very very few credible spokesmen, but that climatologists make a typical middle class salary.
I'm not even sure what you're saying, but you can't possibly think that because some people want to profit from an observed trend that it suddenly means the entire theory is a conspiracy. The science would still be true even if nobody wanted to profit.
Science isn't for sale, but individual scientists are. So no, it doesn't follow that because a handful of scientists have been paid off by oil companies that the entire industry is corrupt. That's like saying that because some men rape, all men are rapists. Logic doesn't work that way.
You didn't read any of the links and simply reposted one of the generic denialist responses you always post in order to avoid thinking.
So yes, science requires money. I don't know where you get your BILLIONS from, but if you ignore the opportunists with no scientific background whatsoever on both sides, you will find not only that your side has very very few credible spokesmen, but that climatologists make a typical middle class salary.
I'm not even sure what you're saying, but you can't possibly think that because some people want to profit from an observed trend that it suddenly means the entire theory is a conspiracy. The science would still be true even if nobody wanted to profit.
The entire thing isn't a conspiracy it's simply the reality that climate science, like any other human endeavor is subject to influence by politics, activism, greed and dogma. Climategate 1 and 2 proved this. There have been many accounts from scientists, suggesting that the process has become political and corrupt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
Science isn't for sale, but individual scientists are.
Yeah, just the skeptical ones, right? How convenient.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
So no, it doesn't follow that because a handful of scientists have been paid off by oil companies that the entire industry is corrupt. That's like saying that because some men rape, all men are rapists. Logic doesn't work that way.
Strawman. Wrong. Incorrect. That is not a correct analogy at all. I am not saying all climate scientists are corrupt because some of them are, I am saying that it's naive and stupid to think that just the skeptical scientists or the ones that you disagree with are.
The entire thing isn't a conspiracy it's simply the reality that climate science, like any other human endeavor is subject to influence by politics, activism, greed and dogma. Climategate 1 and 2 proved this. There have been many accounts from scientists, suggesting that the process has become political and corrupt.
Climategate has nothing to do with whether or not the Earth is getting warmer. It had nothing to do with whether or not everything that the most alarming predictions are stating is true or not. It challenged no theories, undermined no research, and suggested nothing except that some climatologists are humans and not robots, and also that the general public doesn't have enough knowledge on the subject to truly understand what the more technical emails really mean.
Yeah, just the skeptical ones, right? How convenient.
Most of the skeptics have been bought off, yes... or at the very least they've been lauded and publicized more than scientists who can't afford or have no interest in becoming celebrities. It doesn't automatically follow that because the Heartland Institute have paid people to say certain things or that certain scientists have made ridiculous conclusions that anyone actually needs to pay legitimate scientists to say that AGW is real.
Quote:
Originally Posted by voiceofreazon
Strawman. Wrong. Incorrect. That is not a correct analogy at all. I am not saying all climate scientists are corrupt because some of them are, I am saying that it's naive and stupid to think that just the skeptical scientists or the ones that you disagree with are.
You are saying that because your friends Roy Spencer and Dick Lindzen have accepted money from libertarian PR firms like the Heartland Institute, that it must follow that AGW proponents have accepted money in a similar fashion.
Show me evidence of any AGW climatologist being paid by a PR firm like Heartland.
Climategate has nothing to do with whether or not the Earth is getting warmer. It had nothing to do with whether or not everything that the most alarming predictions are stating is true or not. It challenged no theories, undermined no research, and suggested nothing except that some climatologists are humans and not robots, and also that the general public doesn't have enough knowledge on the subject to truly understand what the more technical emails really mean.
How do you take something like this out of context?
Quote:
“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.
“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”
Most of the skeptics have been bought off, yes... or at the very least they've been lauded and publicized more than scientists who can't afford or have no interest in becoming celebrities.
That is completely laughable!! The SKEPTICS are celebrities?! Let's do a random poll of the public and see how many more people have heard of James Hansen or Michael Mann over Richard Lindzen or Roy Spencer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
You are saying that because your friends Roy Spencer and Dick Lindzen have accepted money from libertarian PR firms like the Heartland Institute, that it must follow that AGW proponents have accepted money in a similar fashion.
Richard Lindzen as one example, spoke out as a skeptic as early as 1995:
Science and politics: global warming and eugenics", Risks, Costs, and Lives Saved, New York: http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/180_Eugenics.pdf
That was long before he spoke at the Heartland Institute. He wasn't paid or bribed to change his professional opinion by the Heartland Institute or any oil companies. He was a skeptic long before that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
Show me evidence of any AGW climatologist being paid by a PR firm like Heartland.
That is a false correlation because the skeptics are not being paid to manufacture an opinion. They were skeptics BEFORE their association with Heartland. Show ME evidence of a skeptic who started out neutral or pro-AGW and then changed his opinion for a payoff.
1. You didn't read the link.
2. You posted a paid-for opinion article from Forbes, written by a PR man for Heartland.
In 1995, Lindzen charged Exxon $2,500 a DAY for 'consulting services':
As for the whole 'they were always skeptics' thing, here's an article from 1995:
But while the skeptics portray themselves as besieged truth-seekers fending off irresponsible environmental doomsayers, their testimony in St. Paul and elsewhere revealed the source and scope of their funding for the first time... Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC.
Lindzen has a looooong history as a paid spokesman for big oil and other anti-AGW groups. Heartland is just a small part of his corruption.
Despite the warmers message of doom and apocalypse, critically thinking people gave them the brush off. Seems the warmers have been crying wolf all to long and they got shellacked as well.
It seems that a lot of creationists and anti-AGW folks have decided that the facts of science should be determined by popular vote. If some scientific findings happen to contradict our spiritual or political agendas, we can now "vote them out of office." And, of course, it helps that the "critical thinkers" who have decided to vote for their favorite view of "science" are mostly average folks who have minimal science education.
The truth is, most of these voters are barely smarter than primates, and they just vote the way they were trained to vote.
Voting against their own best wishes is specifically how they've been trained by FOX, Rush, Beck, and a host of other forms of media, both electronic and print.
And lets not forget the "I will give you free stuff if you vote for me" crowd, mainly liberals. So the left buys votes with the promise of other peoples money.
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.
