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.
In order to for scientists keep their jobs, they need funding. Data is manipulated to keep their funding as long as its political expedient to those who hold the purse strings. As soon as it becomes politically wrong, funding is pulled or a new scientific finding is "discovered".
Actually, trashing other people's research is a great way to gain credibility
Haha..... sure.......... Climate change movement is heading down the path of eugenics.....
I hear climate scientist eat babies alive.....
No, they just encourage policies that force impoverished peoples to remain impoverished, thereby raising the infant mortality rate in those cultures.
As for the "heading down the same path" statement, lets take a look:
1. Eugenics was started by questionable science. Environmentalism was started by questionable science.
2. Eugenics was endorsed by celebrities and world leaders. Environmentalism is endorsed by celebrities and world leaders.
3. Dissenters of eugenics were labeled as "anti-progress", "radicals", and "uneducated". Dissenters of the Environmentalist movement are labeled in the same way.
4. Eugenics was an effort to change the world for social good. Environmentalism is an effort to change the world for social good.
5. Eugenics was used as the excuse for violence and atrocious behavior. Environmentalism is used as an excuse for violence (eco-terrorism) and atrocious behavior (causing starvation and disease in impoverished third-world countries).
6. After 30 or so years, there was a backlash against eugenics. The Environmentalist movement is starting to see such a backlash now. More and more people are starting to see the Environmentalist movement as overreaching and overtly political.
Approximately 0% of the scientific studies disputed the theory of man made global warming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDusr
I assume you mean the study here. Actually the problem with that was already pointed out. Actual scientist stated that the ratings were inaccurate. If you view the study the self-rating as they state it was almost 2%. But it is all meaningless since it is entirely subjective and has been shown to actually be inaccurate in it's own subjective ratings.
We have already established that the study misrepresented the findings of numorous peer reviewed works.
Why should we believe the study found 0% that disputes the theory when we know the study LIES and states that certain works (which clearly challenge the theory) are supportive of the theory?
As if pointed studies proving/disproving man-made climate change is the only evidence available.
If you regularly read books, blogs and magazines from 'people' (some who happen to be scientists) who write about their specialties, everything from: wildlife conservation, birding, oceanography, horticulture, various natural history, sociology, geography, etal., you will find that virtually every one will describe dramatically different developments within just the past 2-3 decades attributable to new phenomena.
The new phenomena is obviously from mankind continuing to burn stuff (gas, coal, wood, etc.), continuing to dump (on purpose and by accident) dangerous chemicals everywhere, continuing to destroy protective natural areas, continuing to scatter domestic animals (methane) and other humans across the landscrape while stripping it of its health.
Who in their right mind could doubt mankind is causing all this?
There are a couple of pretty serious problem with your comments here.
First, you rely on the findings of individuals during their own individual lifetimes.
Second you do not consider the reality of history.
We know that there are natural climate patterns that impact global heat content, that last for decades.
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation would be a prime example. This can last for 70 years or so.
There are other climate drivers that last even longer. Solar Cycles last for 11 years (roughly) however, those cycles are a small part of larger patterns of cycles. Some last for centuries and some for millennia.
The lifetime of an individual making observations of their personal surroundings represents little more than artifacts. They cannot capture the fluctuations of natural cycles.
However, when you take individual observations from people at different points in history, you begin to cobble together a more accurate panorama of what climate is and does.
Yes, we can say that over the course of the last 30 to 40 years, there has been a general warming trend. Yes we can say that this warming has brought about some changes. For instance, where I grew up, just about everyone now has citrus trees. As a kid, it was rare, and those that did have them, spent a lot of time keeping them alive in the winter. (This is a good thing).
Is that unusual? It certainly is if you are 50 years old or younger. They didn’t have this 50 years ago. It was colder then.
But we can look back across the centuries and find very interesting things. Things like wheat being grown in Ice Land a thousand years ago… that is something that cannot be done TODAY.
We find evidence of French feudal lords writing letters complaining about wine being grown in England around YORK. That the wine from northern England was better than their French wine, and this was cutting into their profits.
You cannot grow wine, certainly not GOOD WINE in the area around York England TODAY.
What do you contribute those changes to? This happened 800 years ago. Did humans have such a dramatic impact on climate then? Or when things once again cooled, was that human caused? If we have seen warming and cooling equal to or greater than the current one ( and history says we have) why then is this warming period different? Why all the sudden does changes in nature have to mean humans have done something horrible?
Check out Nuccitelli desperately trying to defend the paper and resorting to calling an CAGW researcher (who supports the position of it strongly associated to man) a denier because they called them out on their sloppy work.
Actually, trashing other people's research is a great way to gain credibility
Trashing peoples research (as in analysing it, finding errors, etc...) is called science.
Promoting research with nods of approval because you agree with its conclusions is called politics.
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.
