birdog1960 Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 (edited) Maybe not 'only', but certainly 'largely'. They're in the business of selling subscriptions and collecting ad revenue, which are both based in how many views they get. They're another media outlet, and they sensationalize like anyone else does. and the same for a journal like science or nature? you folks are delusional. they are read by smart people seeking more knowledge. they don't need to fabricate or sensationalize. Edited February 23, 2015 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 you think national geographic is only concerned with mouse clicks and eyeballs? i think you have it confused with the cartoonish books and magazines you likely frequent. no it's not about fear mongering and profiteering. most liberals would be willing to spend large sums in their own tax dollars to attempt to reverse what is happening. this is about stupidity and pandering to it. Yes, I agree the 'Climate Change' narrative is about stupidity and pandering (as I pointed out above). The results of which are evident in your posts. And of course liberals are willing to spend 'large sums of money' -- no new ground there. Just so long as it's someone else's money and goes to worthy causes like Solyndra, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Yes, I agree the 'Climate Change' narrative is about stupidity and pandering (as I pointed out above). The results of which are evident in your posts. And of course liberals are willing to spend 'large sums of money' -- no new ground there. Just so long as it's someone else's money and goes to worthy causes like Solyndra, right? i think you might want to check the demographics on the debate before you repeat your "other peoples money" mantra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 i think you might want to check the demographics on the debate before you repeat your "other peoples money" mantra. How much have you kicked in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 and the same for a journal like science or nature? you folks are delusional. they are read by smart people seeking more knowledge. they don't need to fabricate or sensationalize. I was talking about National Geographic, or as they refer to themselves now, NatGeo. You're the one that brought them up as an example, not me. I won't criticize the integrity of magazines I've never even looked at, and it's BS of you to try to deflect by bringing them up as part of your argument. By calling those that disagree with you 'delusional' you display a mind that is already made up, which is detrimental to the scientific process. Science learns one step at a time, not by jumping to conclusions and sticking by them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 (edited) http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work. Sucks when science is possibly tainted... Edit: Please note, that I'm not insinuating that the "other side" is without tainted science. Edited February 23, 2015 by Dorkington Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 (edited) national geographic is correct. there is a war on science. on al the things mentioned. and there needn't be. as groggy says, most if not all, of the issues can be rectified and aligned with all but the most extreme of religious viewpoints. but that is exactly what we are dealing with and they have declared war on science. the left is, in my view generally more flexible on these issues. i don't believe anyone is saying that climate change is 100% man made. i certainly have no problem with believing evolution is divinely designed. gmo's. i honestly think we'd n be better off not treading down that slippery slope of genetic manipulation but i can see the counter argument. i don't see this as a religious issue. but i can see where extremists might. and vaccinations comes down to the simple belief that the good for the overwhelming many outweighs the very questionable good of the few. even fundamentalist christians should agree here. the old testament is full of dietary and infectious disease (e.g. leprosy) dictums to protect the many from the few. GMO's is a non-issue. No human alive today has eaten anything that hasn't been genetically modified. The arguments against GMO's are lacking in substance. Edited February 23, 2015 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html Sucks when science is possibly tainted... Edit: Please note, that I'm not insinuating that the "other side" is without tainted science. The "other side" that you mentioned often gets their funding via Government research grants. And as we all know the Government is never interested in manipulating data to increase the Regulatory Authority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 (edited) The "other side" that you mentioned often gets their funding via Government research grants. And as we all know the Government is never interested in manipulating data to increase the Regulatory Authority. Dr Soon works for the smithsonian. that's a gov't agency last i knew. this story is akin to an NIH researcher giving pharma sales dinners to community doctors. of course that would never happen. at least we can formally confirm one industry that's funding the "scientific" denier movement. Edited February 24, 2015 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Money and power corrupt, sadly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Money and Power and Religion http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/02/24/un-ipcc-chief-admits-global-warming-is-religious-issue-it-is-my-religion-and-my-dharma/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Money and Power and Religion http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/02/24/un-ipcc-chief-admits-global-warming-is-religious-issue-it-is-my-religion-and-my-dharma/ so wait. a few posts ago the raison d'etre for climate change scientists and publications was money. and now it's religion? it's very confusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 so wait. a few posts ago the raison d'etre for climate change scientists and publications was money. and now it's religion? it's very confusing. No. it is not confusing at all........................your transparent response aside. Study Finds Climate Change Models “Run Hot” Researchers now claim global warming predictions are greatly exaggerated. (This is not surprising to those of us climate change skeptics.) What is shocking is that the findings were published in a peer-reviewed journal and are now actually being covered by some media. The UK Daily Mail has a review of the study: Since 1990, scientists have used complex models to predict how climate change and manmade greenhouse emissions will affect the world. But a team of experts – including an astrophysicist, statistician, and geography professor – has claimed these models ‘very greatly exaggerate’ the effects of global warming. Using a simpler, solar-based model, the researchers arrived at figures that are more than half those previously predicted. The paper, ‘Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model’, was written by Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, astrophysicist and geoscientist Willie Soon, Professor of Geography at the University of Delaware David Legates, and statistician Dr Matt Briggs. It has been peer reviewed and is published in the journal Science Bulletin. Interestingly, one of the scientists who authored the paper has a connection to Cornell. Dr. Matt Briggs, who has a Ph.D. in mathematical statistics from that university, has been the focus of a lot of heat from global warming advocates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg F Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html Sucks when science is possibly tainted... Edit: Please note, that I'm not insinuating that the "other side" is without tainted science. It sucks even more when those that don't like the results of research engage in character assignation. Not surprising, the documents that these stellar NYT's reporters supposedly relied on don't even support what they claim. A comment by Phil sums up the whole thing nicely: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/23/greenpeace-enlists-justin-gillis-john-schwartz-of-the-ny-times-in-journalistic-terrorist-attack-on-willie-soon-miss-target-hit-smithsonian-instead/#comment-1867096 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 GMO's is a non-issue. No human alive today has eaten anything that hasn't been genetically modified. The arguments against GMO's are lacking in substance. Really? That moose in my freezer that never got within 30 miles of a road is "modified"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 so wait. a few posts ago the raison d'etre for climate change scientists and publications was money. and now it's religion? it's very confusing. Money, power, and religion. Who would have thunk the three could be intertwined? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 so wait. a few posts ago the raison d'etre for climate change scientists and publications was money. and now it's religion? it's very confusing. They are commies. Does that clarify it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 A Shameful Climate Witch Hunt Let the climate inquisition begin. The ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, Raúl Grijalva of Arizona, has written to seven universities about seven researchers who harbor impure thoughts about climate change. One of the targets is Steven Hayward, a blogger, author and academic now at Pepperdine University. As Hayward puts it, the spirit of the inquiry is, “Are you now or have you ever been a climate skeptic?” Grijalva’s letters were prompted by the revelation that Wei-Hock Soon, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics whose work has been critical of the climate-change “consensus,” didn’t adequately disclose support for his research from energy interests. Soon’s lapse aside, the assumption of Grijalva’s fishing expedition is that anyone who questions global-warming orthodoxy is a greedy tool of Big Oil and must be harried in the name of planetary justice and survival. Science as an enterprise usually doesn’t need political enforcers. (For whatever reason, Aristotle left that part out in his foundational work a couple of millennia ago.) But proponents of a climate alarmism demanding immediate action to avert worldwide catastrophe won’t and can’t simply let the science speak for itself. Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/opinion-rich-lowry-climate-change-115518.html#ixzz3SrdvKall . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Now the guys who couldn't predict the pause in the temperature have made models to show why the pause happened!! http://qz.com/351797/scientists-now-know-why-global-warming-has-slowed-down-and-its-not-good-news-for-us/ “Eventually we expect temperatures to ‘catch up,’ but it may take longer than five years for that to happen,” Roberts told Quartz. So we should let the government redistribute untold Billions today on a prediction (from people who have a history of failed predictions) of what might happen over five years from now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Meanwhile, in other science... It's 2009, the University of Notre Dame's funding from the State of Michigan will run out on eDNA testing for Asian Carp... Asian carp will invade the Great Lakes in 5 years! Notre Dame now needs the Federal Gov''t to pick up the funding where Michigan leaves off! Oh... And Al Gore says the arctic will be ice free in 4 years (2013)... FFW to 2015... How's that boondoggle working out? Yeah birdog... There's a "war on science"... It's called: "common sense." Can't fault the dreamers for living in the real world hustling a buck. I had a biologist tell me to my face: "It's job security and keeps us working." Huh? So many things are tainted, it's beyond belief... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts