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.
I didn't know that a private university was required to comply with the FOIA, I assume because he does work through the Smithsonian which is federally funded.
His opinion stood out on it's own because of his academic credentials, I guess they are back to Anthony Watt. Always willing to listen to opposing points of view except when they are backed by money.
Pretty typical of the AGW cult-if you can't debate the science, disparage the scientist due to "funding sources". No surprise there. The problem is finding researchers without some sort of bias. So, we discount scientists funded by the oil and gas industry due to conflict of interest? Fine. We also need to do so with any researchers receiving government funding, for exactly the same reason. They have a strong interest in producing results that support "warming" to justify the taxes their donors want to raise. Ignore studies from any group that receives any funding from an "environmental" group for the same reason.
I actually remember when science was about, well, science. Developing and testing hypotheses, designing and performing repeatable experiments, welcoming and actually explaining discrepancies and conflicts with the data or results and looking to improve the process. Not blanket statements like "the science is settled by a poll", or "the solution is a high wealth transfer tax" or insisting that opposing points of view are disparaged by giving them a nasty-sounding name. AGW promoters are neo-scientists.
Problem is...who's left?
Last edited by Toyman at Jewel Lake; 02-22-2015 at 08:23 AM..
Pretty typical of the AGW cult-if you can't debate the science, disparage the scientist due to "funding sources". No surprise there. The problem is finding researchers without some sort of bias. So, we discount scientists funded by the oil and gas industry due to conflict of interest? Fine. We also need to do so with any researchers receiving government funding, for exactly the same reason. They have a strong interest in playing the "warming" crowd to justify the taxes their donors want to raise. Ignore studies from any group that receives any funding from an "environmental" group for the same reason.
So when are you going to present evidence of all those scientists supposedly "falsifying data" instead of just parroting baseless crap from tabloid press articles and denier conspiracy blogs.
Pretty typical of the AGW cult-if you can't debate the science, disparage the scientist due to "funding sources". No surprise there. The problem is finding researchers without some sort of bias. So, we discount scientists funded by the oil and gas industry due to conflict of interest? Fine. We also need to do so with any researchers receiving government funding, for exactly the same reason. They have a strong interest in playing the "warming" crowd to justify the taxes their donors want to raise. Ignore studies from any group that receives any funding from an "environmental" group for the same reason.
Problem is...who's left?
Except the science has long been debated and the evidence is overwhelming.
Except Willie got caught not declaring his "funding" in published papers.
Except Willie's 'science' has been shown to be pretty much just cherry-picked propaganda that he calls "deliverables" published in low impact rather obscure Journals.
Pretty typical of the AGW cult-if you can't debate the science, disparage the scientist due to "funding sources". No surprise there. The problem is finding researchers without some sort of bias. So, we discount scientists funded by the oil and gas industry due to conflict of interest? Fine. We also need to do so with any researchers receiving government funding, for exactly the same reason. They have a strong interest in playing the "warming" crowd to justify the taxes their donors want to raise. Ignore studies from any group that receives any funding from an "environmental" group for the same reason.
Problem is...who's left?
Receiving funding from the government is quite different than an oil company sponsoring a scientist, do you recall the research by scientists and doctors backed by the tobacco industry? Same complaint that the government was biased.
Government researchers do not receive more less funding based on their conclusions, do you think that Dr. Soon would have received funding from the Southern Company if his research contradicted their belief's?
Strange how all of a sudden organizations like NASA & NOAA that have done research and received funding for decades, put people on the moon are somehow now unscientific because the oil companies say so, sounds familiar.
"A former Environmental Protection Agency employee and top global warming expert will be sentenced Wednesday after pleading guilty to defrauding taxpayers of nearly $1 million in a wild scheme dating back to at least 2000."
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.
I remember when AlGore's movie was shown in schools and the kids were REQUIRED to watch it.
He probably got a royalty check from the state/school system every time it was shown.
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.
