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.
So accepting many times more than that in government funding to support the AGW extremism party line is perfectly OK, with the threat that any scientist contradicting them will be personally smeared and destroyed, and nobody has any right to be upset about this.
There has never been any sudden boom in government funding for climate research that is luring people onto the research track, much less inducing them to support the consensus view. If anything, many years of flat funding would provide an incentive for people to look to getting out of the field.
Quote:
"Thousands of scientists have been funded to find a connection between human carbon emissions and the climate. Hardly any have been funded to find the opposite."
This displays an almost incomprehensible misunderstanding of how science research works. There are institutes that are dedicated to studying the Sun—the Naval Research Laboratory has one, as does NASA. But those institutes are focused on learning about what the Sun actually does, not squeezing what we learn into some preconceived agenda.
And Soon has openly admitted that he receives money from oil companies. Of course you're going to try to protect your ego and refuse to admit that he's corrupt... but not because you actually care about what's going on.
This is a true rejection of science at its worst. If these people were trustworthy, then why would they not be able to simply use the accurate data and let the results be what they may? Obviously, because that would not support their alarmist agenda.
You keep repeating Booker's pathetic lies as if they haven't already been exposed as ignorance of how raw data processing works.
So their opinion is not based on the facts of the matter. That means it's worthless. You can pretend reading chicken entrails or praying leads to accurate conclusions about scientific matters if you like, but don't expect me to do the same or take such conclusions seriously.
So he is not an astrophysicist, has no background in climatology and he isn't employed by Harvard, someone should tell Senator Inhoffe.
Quote:
Though often described on conservative news programs as a “Harvard astrophysicist,” Dr. Soon is not an astrophysicist and has never been employed by Harvard. He is a part-time employee of the Smithsonian Institution with a doctoral degree in aerospace
engineering. ...
Though he has little formal training in climatology, Dr. Soon has for years published papers trying to show that variations in the sun’s energy can explain most recent global warming. His thesis is that human activity has played a relatively small role in causing climate change.
Many experts in the field say that Dr. Soon uses out-of-date data, publishes spurious correlations between solar output and climate indicators, and does not take account of the evidence implicating emissions from human behavior in climate change.
Gavin A. Schmidt, head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, a
NASA division that studies climate change, said that the sun had probably
accounted for no more than 10 percent of recent global warming and that
greenhouse gases produced by human activity explained most of it.
“The science that Willie Soon does is almost pointless,”
Dr. Schmidt said.
"Deniers" is a politically oriented term that he and other alarmists constantly use in an effort to try and be manipulative. What he has not noticed is that nobody really takes these sorts of assaults seriously.
It comes from people who have denied the holocaust. So, he and the alarmists that use this term are collectively trying to associate people who have doubts and concerns about this alarmist movement with Adolph Hitler and his murderous campaign against the Jews.
And the alarmists also like to complain about "conspiracy theories" by the way. {Pot meet kettle}
'Denier' comes from denialism.
It's a valid description of your views.
You can be a vaccine denier, an evolution denier, a holocaust denier, and AIDS denier, etc... it has nothing to do with linking your perspective to the Nazis.
And even if it did, that's not even close to being a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory involves people conspiring. I suppose you could say that big oil buying scientists is a conspiracy theory, but it's one that makes a lot of sense, resembles the big tobacco conspiracy, and is always unravelling-- not that deniers care.
"Deniers" is a politically oriented term that he and other alarmists constantly use in an effort to try and be manipulative. What he has not noticed is that nobody really takes these sorts of assaults seriously.
It comes from people who have denied the holocaust. So, he and the alarmists that use this term are collectively trying to associate people who have doubts and concerns about this alarmist movement with Adolph Hitler and his murderous campaign against the Jews.
And the alarmists also like to complain about "conspiracy theories" by the way. {Pot meet kettle}
This is a remarkably solid scientific argument outlining how current climate theory doesn't actually explain the data, and is in no way an attack aimed at casting personal aspersions on the critics of republican talking points. Nicely done.
That is not quite the same, the government doesn't equate pay with opinion they receive research funding regardless . If that were the case the Smithsonian would have taken him off the payroll because his papers went against their philosophy.
Does the Southern Company also pay those that back AGW or was this just one big coincidence.
Government doesn't equate cash with opinion, hard to believe, they of course need to keep a straight face. however universities do equate being fed cash for opinion.
Maybe the guy went on for so long because his peered reviewed papers were solid science. He is being condemned here because of 'association with cash. How is that cash any different than that doled out by the feds to institutes of higher learning?
Maybe the impact of human caused global warming is debatable. I hope it is, otherwise it falls out of the realm of science and becomes a weaponed political tool to forward an agenda.
Maybe the guy went on for so long because his peered reviewed papers were solid science. He is being condemned here because of 'association with cash. How is that cash any different than that doled out by the feds to institutes of higher learning?
Imagine that a research team at a university did a study where they found some as-yet-unknown force that is responsible for the current warming, discovered some new property of CO2, or discovered some new interaction between CO2 and the atmosphere. Suddenly, everything that climatologists thought they knew was always wrong. Don't you think that group of researchers would be absolutely showered with fame, glory AND money?
A discovery like that would be a truly humungous deal. It would be relativity, the big bang, evolution, or gravity... a great leap forward in our understanding of the planet. The nobel prize wouldn't be off the table.
The thing about the science world is that nobody notices the studies that make small amounts of progress to slightly change our understanding of an established scientific theory. Those papers get buried under other papers and finally die with a whimper when someone writes a better one. Some of them turn into a tiny footnote, the most significant ones become footnotes more often. THOSE are the studies that the government pays for.
There are actually HUGE incentives even in the public sector to 'disprove' AGW. This is at least one reason why Spencer, Christy, Lindzen, etc. keep at it... because 'disproving' AGW brings them fame, glory and media attention. It's the wrong kind of attention because the glory is fake and their papers are embarrassingly easy to debunk, but it is very possible that they aren't truly corrupt and are simply blinded by their own burning desire to be pioneers.
However the reason that legit scientists aren't disputing AGW is because the facts keep pointing, over and over, to humans as the cause... you can't do a climate-related study without finding that the theory constantly re-asserts itself as the only possible explanation for observed phenomena. From plants to ice to soil to the ocean to the atmosphere-- everything points back to humans and CO2 emissions.
The only place that AGW is in question is in right wing media like the Booker articles and crazy denier blogland... and every week they bring out some new 'revolutionary' study that 'proves' it's anything but CO2. Of course you're going to read about that more than you read about some boring, difficult study that talks about the effects of AGW on soil. But it doesn't mean that all of these 'small' studies aren't reaffirming AGW over and over while the fake ones grab all of your attention.
And what you're saying about Soon doesn't even make sense. The oil companies continued to pay him because he continued to say what they wanted him to say. The money they gave him, combined with the right-wing media's increasingly aggressive anti-science stance, means he is wealthy and relevant without ever needing to be competent or honest.
It's not complicated.
Last edited by Spatula City; 02-22-2015 at 01:59 PM..
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.
