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.
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.
Um you DO understand don't you that SOMEONE (notably the oil companies) are paying the climate change deniers as well, RIGHT?
It's the same tactic used by the tobacco companies 30 years ago - they find "for hire" "scientists" to "debunk" the majority scientific view. It won't work in the long run - since climate change will become increasingly undeniable - but in the meantime those's denier scientists sponsors will continue to rake in their big bucks.
EVERY major study by large scientific organizations that has studied the problem (in most cases then went on to something else) has come up with the same answer - climate change is happening and it's largely man-made.
How does that prove that climate scientists consider only CO2? They consider all of the greenhouse gases, but CO2 emissions are something we can actually control fairly easily. CFCs are now limited, water vapor, NO, methane are mostly produced naturally, although some NO is produced by combustion.
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 his 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.
Ken
It really does not matter in this context other than to use it as an ad hominem attack in order to invalidate the argument raised.
The paper was a critique of the Obama administration's National Climate Assessment. Either the arguments raised hold water or they do not. That isn't even being addressed. What is being addressed is the dirt that people seek to dig up on the authors.
If you are in a university science class, submitting your thesis, a studen't work is judged on it's scientific merits and it's adherence to the scientific method, not the student's personal religious views.
What is happening here, when people are presented with an article, an opinion or an argument, as soon as they realize that it runs counter to their beliefs they hit up Google and start looking for dirt or some excuse to diminish the author or the publisher of that article. They never read or consider the article, probably because they are afraid that it might make sense or resonate with them on some level and THEN they would have to examine their own beliefs on the subject that they have invested so much of themselves and their identity in.
Um you DO understand don't you that SOMEONE (notably the oil companies) are paying the climate change deniers as well, RIGHT?
It's the same tactic used by the tobacco companies 30 years ago - they find "for hire" "scientists" to "debunk" the majority scientific view. It won't work in the long run - since climate change will become increasingly undeniable - but in the meantime those's denier scientists sponsors will continue to rake in their big bucks.
EVERY major study by large scientific organizations that has studied the problem (in most cases then went on to something else) has come up with the same answer - climate change is happening and it's largely man-made.
Ken
Yeah, there is corruption, politics, activism and GREED on BOTH sides of the aisle. Imagine that
“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."
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.
Got it
"Well you found it on the internet so it must be true." -Abraham Lincoln
How does that prove that climate scientists consider only CO2? They consider all of the greenhouse gases, but CO2 emissions are something we can actually control fairly easily. CFCs are now limited, water vapor, NO, methane are mostly produced naturally, although some NO is produced by combustion.
WHAAAAT are you EVEN talking about?!?!
Are you having an argument with yourself because I don't know where this is coming from.
You said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
Climate research doesn't pay well, the amount of money dedicated to it has been shrinking,
That was the issue that I took exception to, the notion that the money dedicated to Climate Research was somehow SHRINKING. That's what caused me to say that your assertion was flat out WRONG.
I proved it with a link to an article about the national budget that shows Climate Funding increasing as it has been every year.
Are you having an argument with yourself because I don't know where this is coming from.
You said:
That was the issue that I took exception to, the notion that the money dedicated to Climate Research was somehow SHRINKING. That's what caused me to say that your assertion was flat out WRONG.
I proved it with a link to an article about the national budget that shows Climate Funding increasing as it has been every year.
Sorry, I got you mixed up with another poster...
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.
