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 wouldn't choose the threat of a planet overheating because it's complex, difficult for people to understand and hard to prove.
I would choose the threat to the environment and wildlife from pollution and habitat destruction.
That's a much easier case to defend and prove.
This all tells me climate scientist's are not lying and it isn't about money.
This is a real threat.
And Republican's are wasting precious time.
If I were a scientist, climate or otherwise, whose priority was to keep my job, my reputation, my grants coming, my teaching position in a prestigious university, my tenure, my standing in my community, the respect of my peers, and I knew that to do all this I'd have to swear that the moon is made of green cheese, even if I doubted it and questioned the so-called data advanced to "prove" this claim, that's what I'd likely do. Especially if I knew I'd be blackballed, discredited and out of a job and my life and that of my loved ones threatened ifI said otherwise.
Real science is never settled, there is always room for questions, doubts and even revised hypotheses if the data is examined with an objective eye and not manipulated or interpreted to fit a predetermined conclusion. And threats, intimidation, and ridicule towards those who display a healthy skepticism or question a so-called scie tific conclusion is NOT part of the scientific method.
If I were a scientist, climate or otherwise, whose priority was to keep my job, my reputation, my grants coming, my teaching position in a prestigious university, my tenure, my standing in my community, the respect of my peers, and I knew that to do all this I'd have to swear that the moon is made of green cheese, even if I doubted it and questioned the so-called data advanced to "prove" this claim, that's what I'd likely do. Especially if I knew I'd be blackballed, discredited and out of a job and my life and that of my loved ones threatened ifI said otherwise.
Real science is never settled, there is always room for questions, doubts and even revised hypotheses if the data is examined with an objective eye and not manipulated or interpreted to fit a predetermined conclusion. And threats, intimidation, and ridicule towards those who display a healthy skepticism or question a so-called scie tific conclusion is NOT part of the scientific method.
Scientists don't make money by being right; they make money from trying to prove they are right. No one doubts that pollution is bad, so there is no money to be made. The causes of Climate Change are numerous and very hard to pinpoint precisely, so more money must be given to scientists for research.
Last edited by Retroit; 06-03-2017 at 01:17 PM..
Reason: spelling
But the ones that are hard for people to follow or understand also will inspire more doubt and hesitation to believe.
Whereas threats like environmental pollution and habitat/species destruction are easy for the public to grasp, nearly impossible to deny and much easier to prove since it all is basically true anyway.
So why invent a hoax for money when you already have a valid reason for bringing pollution under control?
A climate change hoax doesn't even make logical sense.
When you want to push a narrative such as climate change, you don't just find some homeless people on the street and get their opinion, you go to those who are well respected or hold some sort of authority in the field. The people who have pushed climate change are all scientists, not business administrators or architects.
And you DEFINITELY don't try to push a hoax if it can easily be disproved by the general population. The point of a hoax is to fool a given population. Most people have relatively little knowledge about how the climate works, and wouldn't know anything about it if they hadn't been taught by scientists in their schools.
When you want to push a narrative such as climate change, you don't just find some homeless people on the street and get their opinion, you go to those who are well respected or hold some sort of authority in the field. The people who have pushed climate change are all scientists, not business administrators or architects.
And you DEFINITELY don't try to push a hoax if it can easily be disproved by the general population. The point of a hoax is to fool a given population. Most people have relatively little knowledge about how the climate works, and wouldn't know anything about it if they hadn't been taught by scientists in their schools.
So algore is a scientist, eh?
And for the politicians, businesses owners, and other nonscientists who stand to benefit from those carbon tax dollars, why would they be interested in whether or not their man made global warming premise can be proven or not, when they figure that scare tactics, threats, and intimidation will work to keep anyone from questioning their idiotic claims.
Scientists don't make money by being right; they make money from trying to prove they are right. No one doubts that pollution is bad, so there is no money to be made. The causes of Climate Change are numerous and very hard to pinpoint precisely, so more money must be given to scientists for research.
These graphs make it pretty clear where the change is coming from:
You have it backwards, OP. The more complex and hard to measure something is, the easier it is promote hoaxes or conspiracy theories about it.
EXACTLY!
If something is so complicated and convoluted to understand, it makes the hoax that much more insidious. ACA comes to mind. Too complicated to understand so we must pass it to find out what's in it.
Hey OP... the UEA did have their emails made public and it showed they were colluding to misrepresent the science. It's all about the green.
Blame them, not the leaks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natural510
These graphs make it pretty clear where the change is coming from:
If I were a scientist, climate or otherwise, whose priority was to keep my job, my reputation, my grants coming, my teaching position in a prestigious university, my tenure, my standing in my community, the respect of my peers, and I knew that to do all this I'd have to swear that the moon is made of green cheese, even if I doubted it and questioned the so-called data advanced to "prove" this claim, that's what I'd likely do. Especially if I knew I'd be blackballed, discredited and out of a job and my life and that of my loved ones threatened ifI said otherwise.
Real science is never settled, there is always room for questions, doubts and even revised hypotheses if the data is examined with an objective eye and not manipulated or interpreted to fit a predetermined conclusion. And threats, intimidation, and ridicule towards those who display a healthy skepticism or question a so-called scie tific conclusion is NOT part of the scientific method.
Well said
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.
