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.
Without wading into the whole global warming morass, the OP has a point - the scientific grant funding process has become a self-serve buffet of taxpayer dollars for anybody who can write pro-administration propaganda into a grant application. Doesn't matter which administration.
This is particularly true in the social sciences, but climatology has been climbing of late as well. (Go figure...)
It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.
Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.
The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.
According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”
The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.
Forbes interpreting what the study says, SOP for them and you bought it, not that I give the report any credibility but it is around 30 pages and they pulled one phrase.
There are 5 frames breaking down respondents to the Kyoto Protocol, they decided to pick just one, now why would that be
Once again...
Why is it fine for you to malign scientists for not being a dedicated to climate science when they disagree with your view but you will turn around and cite a group of non-climate scientists when it suits your argument?
Why do you keep claiming that we should only consider peer reviewed, published science while you are citing a PR statement (non-published, non-peer reviewed) by a group of non-climate scientists?
The hypocrisy, denial and confirmation bias runs deep and you are too stubborn to admit it when you get caught.
Quote:
Originally Posted by getitgotitgood
You refuse to admit your own hypocrisy and confirmation bias and thus you keep changing the subject.
Because "your" scientists haven't been able to prove their work. They stick to blogs instead of journals because their work can't withstand scrutiny.
As ceist pointed out, every major scientific association has agreed that man's actions are contributing to climate change.
And maybe you don't know what the word conspiracy means. I don't use the word conspiracy because I don't know that there is one. But I do know they fudge data and that's what this thread is about.
If every climate scientist and liberal politician in the world knowingly working together to perpetuate a fear campaign based on secretly invented information isn't a conspiracy, I don't know what is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starman71
As a teacher, I expect my students to prove to me what they know, not what they can look up aND quote back to me. But obviously you can't do this.
You would fail my class.
And you are doing a wonderful job of deflection. You see, I'm not actually trying to gather information. What I'm trying to prove is that from all of this mess that has been created by the AGW crowd, not a single plan is actually in place to mitigate the so-called oncoming disaster. Now I wonder why is that? Is it because, possibly, there is no oncoming disaster? We continue to spend millions and billions of dollars each year on studies supporting the same thing over and over again. But for some reason we don't see many studies showing what we should do to counter the positive feedback loop that we have created. We don't see studies to show what we should do about how to protect their coasts from the rising oceans. We don't see any studies to show what we should do about reorganizing our agricultural lands. Or studies to show what would be the best method of moving people in the soon-to-be flooded lands.
So, my failing student, I ask you one last time. What do you - specifically you - know that we should do in order to mitigate the oncoming disaster. What plans have you - specifically you - seen, read of, studied or heard of that would do just what I asked?
Please, show everyone else who is reading this forum how much you truly know about this topic. Or, on the other hand, you can show everyone how little you actually know about this topic. It sounds as if you talk a very big game, but you honestly don't know that much about it. So please prove to us the readers that you actually can have a coherent intelligent logical conversation. Prove to us, that you are as smart as you seem to think you are.
I expect another deflection, so I'll go ahead and give you your F now.
You've earned it.
This seems a little ridiculous. There are studies showing that blowing your brains out with a gun will kill you, but none that show how to stuff your brains back in, therefore it's all a conspiracy anti-gun fear-mongering?
I mean, you're completely wrong that we aren't doing anything to fight warming, and your premise that if we haven't it's due to conspiracy and not Republican intransigence is severely flawed, but even setting aside those points it's a nonsensical argument.
Yes, we know there have been several Ice Ages.
We know the magnetic poles have flipped several times.
We know the poles are constantly moving(toward Russia at the moment)
We know the earth's plates are constantly moving.
We know big things have hit the earth in the past.
We know forest fires burned for years.
We know cloud cover makes it warmer at night and cooler during the day
Other than that, our earth is not a static experiment. It is very dynamic.
The Daily Caller? Seriously Is that how you delude yourself? By reading dishonest BS anti-science propaganda in the right-wing tabloid press?
I doubt you even know just how much 'correction' is required to get any atmospheric temperature data from satellites. Far more than for surface thermometers. Do you even know what the satellites measure and how? How about you ask Spencer and Christy for the 'raw' satellite data for UAH.
While you're at it, ask them why it took so many years for them to correct the flaws in their adjustments in the 1990's?
Well Ciest, I know that adjusted temperature models are not verifiable because they are just models, but satellite readings (AMSU) are verifiable because they are first calibrated and then the calibration is verified by measuring a known target area.
Well Ciest, I know that adjusted temperature models are not verifiable because they are just models, but satellite readings (AMSU) are verifiable because they are first calibrated and then the calibration is verified by measuring a known target area.
"Adjusted temperature models"? What are you even talking about?
And you still don't seem to know what satellites actually measure in the troposphere. Did you have a point with that paper?
Try looking up the RSS website.
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.
Is that how you delude yourself? By reading dishonest BS anti-science propaganda in the right-wing tabloid press? 
