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...
Dante 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... So much science is influenced by external interests all you can do is rely on your own common sense. Pathetic. Just read this and I thought it was kind of ironic and just common sense so I believe it. http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/27/claim-co2-emissions-are-greening-the-planet/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxrock Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Mods: please move this to PPP, so I can abuse this dumbass properly. Heh... good ole days. Bills had a chance at backing into the playoff's and 2014 was going to be a record breaking hot year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg F Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 (edited) ... at least we can formally confirm one industry that's funding the "scientific" denier consensus movement.Fixed it for you. Long List Of Warmist Organizations, Scientists Haul In Huge Money From BIG OIL And Heavy Industry! 1. Climate Research Unit (CRU) History From the late 1970s through to the collapse of oil prices in the late 1980s, CRU received a series of contracts from BP to provide data and advice concerning their exploration operations in the Arctic marginal seas. Working closely with BPs Cold Regions Group, CRU staff developed a set of detailed sea-ice atlases, This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order): British PetroleumGreenpeace InternationalReinsurance Underwriters and SyndicatesSultanate of OmanShell 2. Sierra Club TIME 2 February 2012 Exclusive: How the Sierra Club Took Millions From the Natural Gas Industry TIME has learned that between 2007 and 2010 the Sierra Club accepted over $25 million in donations from the gas industry, mostly from Aubrey McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energyone of the biggest gas drilling companies in the U.S. and a firm heavily involved in fracking 3. Delhi Sustainable Development Summit [Founded by Teri under Dr. Rajendra Pachauri chairman of the IPCC] 2011: Star Partner Rockefeller Foundation 2007: Partners BP 2006: Co-Associates NTPC [coal and gas power generation] | Function Hosts BP 2005: Associate Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, India | Co-Associate Shell 4. Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project Berkeley Earth team members include: Richard Muller, Founder and Scientific DirectorSteven Mosher, Scientist Financial Support First Phase (2010) Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000) The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000) Second Phase (2011) The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000) Third Phase (2012) The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)Anonymous Foundation ($250,000) Fourth Phase (2013) The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($100,000) 5. 350.org 350.org caught up in fossil fuel divestment hypocrisy [Rockefellers Brothers Fund] RBF has given 350.org $800,000 in recent years and almost $2 million to the 1Sky Education Fund, now part of 350.org, according to foundation records. 6. Union of Concerned Scientists The 2013 Annual Report PDF UCS thanks the following companies that matched members gifts at a level of $1,000 or more.Chevron Corporation Annual Report 2002 PDF The Union of Concerned Scientists gratefully acknowledges the following individuals and foundations for their generous contributions of at least $500 during our fiscal year 2002 (October 1, 2001September 30, 2002) Friends of UCS The Friends of UCS provide substantial support for the ongoing work of the organizationLarry RockefellerMatching Gift CompaniesBP Amoco Matching Gift ProgramPhilip Morris Companies, Inc 7. University of California, Berkeley CalCAP, Cal Climate Action Partnership What is CalCAP? The Cal Climate Action Partnership (CalCAP) is a collaboration of faculty, administration, staff, and students working to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at UC Berkeley. 8. University of California, Berkeley UC Berkeley News 1 February 2007 BP selects UC Berkeley to lead $500 million energy research consortium with partners Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, University of Illinois. 9. Climate Institute About Us The Climate Institute has been in a unique position to inform key decision-makers, heighten international awareness of climate change, and identify practical ways of achieving significant emissions reductions Donors American Gas FoundationBPNASA.PG&E Corporation [natural gas & electricity]Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Shell FoundationThe Rockefeller FoundationUNDP, UNEP 10. EcoLiving About EcoLiving provides events and hands-on workshops to teach Albertans about ways to reduce our collective ecological footprint, create more sustainable and energy efficient buildings, and share information about local environmental initiatives and services Sponsors 2008 Sponsors: ConocoPhillipsShell 2009 Sponsors: ConocoPhillips Canada2013 Sponsors:Shell FuellingChange 11. Nature Conservancy Climate Change Threats and Impacts Climate change is already beginning to transform life on Earth. Around the globe, seasons are shifting, temperatures are climbing and sea levels are rising If we dont act now, climate change will rapidly alter the lands and waters we all depend upon for survival, leaving our children and grandchildren with a very different world 12. Washington Post 24 May 2010 What De Leon didnt know was that the Nature Conservancy lists BP as one of its business partners. The Conservancy also has given BP a seat on its International Leadership Council and has accepted nearly $10 million in cash and land contributions from BP and affiliated corporations over the years.The Conservancy, already scrambling to shield oyster beds from the spill, now faces a different problem: a potential backlash 13. Americas WETLAND Foundation Restore-Adapt-Mitigate: Responding To Climate Change Through Coastal Habitat Restoration PDF Coastal habitats are being subjected to a range of stresses from climate change; many of these stresses are predicted to increase over the next century The most significant effects are likely to be from sea-level rise, increased storm and wave intensity, temperature increases, carbon dioxide concentration increases, and changes in precipitation that will alter freshwater delivery Sponsors World Sponsor: Shell Sustainability Sponsors: Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil National Sponsors: British Petroleum 14. Green Energy Futures About Us Green Energy Futures is a multi-media storytelling project that is documenting the clean energy revolution thats already underway. It tells the stories of green energy pioneers who are moving forward in their homes, businesses and communities. Gold Sponsor: Shell 15. World Resources Institute Climate WRI engages businesses, policymakers, and civil society at the local, national, and international levels to advance transformative solutions that mitigate climate change and help communities adapt to its impacts. ACKNOWLEDGING OUR DONORS (January 1, 2011 August 1, 2012 PDF 5MB Shell and Shell FoundationConocoPhillips Company 16. Purdue Solar Navitas Takes 1st at SEMA 2013 Last week, Purdue Solar Racing took home first place in the Battery Electric division at the 2013 Shell Eco-marathon. The winning run reached an efficiency of 78.1 m/kWh (a miles per gallon equivalency of approximate 2,630MPGe) 17. AGU Fall Meeting 9-13 December 2013 Thank You to Our Sponsors The AGU would like to take the time to thank all of our generous sponsors who support the 2013 Fall Meeting and the events at the meeting. ExxonMobil.BP, Chevron..Mineralogical Society of America 18. Science Museum Atmosphere About our funders exploring climate science gallery and the three-year Climate Changing programme. Through these ground-breaking projects we invite all our visitors to deepen their understanding of the science behind our changing climate. We believe that working together with such a wide range of sectors is something that well all need to be able to do in our climate-changing world. Principal Sponsors: ShellSiemens 19. Dr. Michael Mann WUWT October 15, 2013 it is enlightening to learn that his current employer, Penn State, gets funds from Koch, and so does where Dr. Mann did his thesis from, the University of Virginia. Those darn facts, they are stubborn things. See the list that follows [Comments] Jimbo October 16, 2013 at 11:49 am Why stop at Koch funding? Exxon Mobil Corporation 2012 Worldwide Contributions and Community Investments ..Pennsylvania State University [$] 258,230 20. Stanford University New York Times 21 November 2002 By ANDREW C. REVKIN Exxon-Led Group Is Giving A Climate Grant to Stanford Four big international companies, including the oil giant Exxon Mobil, said yesterday that they would give Stanford University $225 million over 10 years for research on ways to meet growing energy needs without worsening global warming.In 2000, Ford and Exxon Mobils global rival, BP, gave $20 million to Princeton to start a similar climate and energy research program 21. National Science Teachers Association Jun 11, 2012 by Wendi Liles You are invited this summer to the 4th Annual CSI: Climate Status Investigations free climate change educator professional development in Wilmington, DE. You will also get to participate in a climate change lesson with the staff from Delaware Nature Society to investigate the effect of climate change on their urban watershed..a few fun giveaways thanks to our sponsors-DuPont, Agilent Technologies, Lockheed Martin, Chevron, Delaware Nature Society 22. Duke University ConocoPhillips Pledges $1 Million to Climate Change Policy Partnership at Duke 2007 ConocoPhillips, the third-largest integrated energy company in the United States, has pledged $1 million to support an industry-university collaboration working to develop policies that address global climate change, Duke University President Richard H. Brodhead announced Wednesday. 23. Alberta Water Council PDF Growing demands from an increasing population, economic development, and climate change are the realities impacting our water allocation system. Breakfast Sponsor: ConocoPhillips CanadaRiver Level Sponsors.ConocoPhillips Canada 24. University of California, Davis Institute of Transportation Studies PDF 10th Biennial Conference on Transportation and Energy Policy Toward a Policy Agenda For Climate Change Asilomar Transport & Energy Conferences VIII. Managing Transitions in the Transport Sector: How Fast and How Far? September 11-14, 2001. Sponsored by US DOE, US EPA, Natural Resources Canada, ExxonMobil, and Chevron (Chair: D. Sperling) 25. Washington Free Beacon 27 January 2015 Foreign Firm Funding U.S. Green Groups Tied to State-Owned Russian Oil Company Executives at a Bermudan firm funneling money to U.S. environmentalists run investment funds with Russian tycoons A shadowy Bermudan company that has funneled tens of millions of dollars to anti-fracking environmentalist groups in the United States is run by executives with deep ties to Russian oil interests and offshore money laundering schemes involving members of President Vladimir Putins inner circleThe Sierra Club, the Natural Resource Defense Council, Food and Water Watch, the League of Conservation Voters, and the Center for American Progress were among the recipients of Sea Changes $100 million in grants in 2010 and 2011.None of this foreign corporations funding is disclosed in any way, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee wrote of the company in a report last year All birdog seems to be able to prove is that he/she is a mouthpiece for leftest propaganda. Edited March 1, 2015 by Greg F Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Dear Al Gore, watch this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 New record. http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum/#.VPefGOGrYVm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 (edited) Speaking of records...Boston could break it's snow record this week. http://www.weather.com/news/news/new-england-boston-record-snow-tracker Now, notice I said snow, and not rain? Hold on a sec: if we accept that greater percipitation is a outcome of GW(let's put aside AGW, for obvious reasons, right now), AND, we accept that the planet is getting warmer, shouldn't Boston be getting hit with record rain, not snow? This also speaks to the Arctic vs. Antarctic issue from the link above as well: If we accept the premise in the link that GW means cooler in some places and hotter in others? (Which is weird, because until the article above, I have NEVER seen GW presented in this light by any government agency. It's always been GW == hotter in ALL places, all the time.) Then how can we expect to make any reasonable predictions about catastrophic outcomes anywhere on the planet, and have those predictions fulfilled by anything, other than random chance? This Bay Nobody Cares about with its low pressure system crap? WTF? It's colder, over an entire continent, than expected, moron. I can make up random weather patterns, and have them do whatever I "predict" they will as well. There's a game that does it: Elements of War Nobody predicted the Antarctic ice record. In the article above, Dr. Semantics tries to play it off, but there's no way they "expected" the Antarctic ice record. (Once again I direct you all to: behavior). Read the quote a few times: get it? She passes in the word "expected" but never cites the source of that expectation. We'd call that passing an empty variable, so you an slide by your unit tests. Given all of this, how can anyone reasonably predict 3 feet of water in NYC in 2016? Or, for that matter, endless drought in California? I could just as easily "predict" 3 feet of snow in California, using the same premises/assertions and parameters established in both articles, and my prediction has the same propensity to occur as any other. So WTF? I'll tell you: We're back to a problem definition. Sorry, the inconvenient truth here is: we have no idea what to expect, largely because we have very little understanding of what is actually happening, to include whether man is causing this(in part or in total), and especially, if he isn't, whether man can do anything whatsovever to prevent/mitigate it(in part or in total). Hence, ALL the policy(carbon credits, Solyndra, crushing the coal industry, etc.) is based on nothing other than "because I said so". Which.....is par for the course for essentially every major leftist idea in this century and the last. Example: People bitched about Viet Nam and Iraq...but the War on Poverty has been going on 5x longer, and has 50x the casualties. The War on Poverty has never been won, because of piss poor problem definition, and therefore, piss poor solutions. Here's help for all you jr. problem solvers out there: we don't start proposing solutions to problems, until we have defined them fully and properly. So, don't tell me anything more about solar and wind and tax credits....until you can clearly define exactly what the F the problems are, in detail. Both articles make it abundantly clear that the "consensus" cannot do that. As I said above: it's far past time for the scientists to get back to working, and cease talking. And it's time for the leftist politicos to STFU about this issue until the problem has been soundly defined as a result of that work. Edited March 5, 2015 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 And it's time for the leftist politicos to STFU about this issue until the problem has been soundly defined as a result of that work. They know the true problem, you and I have money, and they need to find an excuse to take it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Here's help for all you jr. problem solvers out there: we don't start proposing solutions to problems, until we have defined them fully and properly. That won't happen until people realize consensus doesn't provide full or proper definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 That won't happen until people realize consensus doesn't provide full or proper definition. Even when it's a make believe consensus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Even when it's a make believe consensus? You mean that the consensus is that there is a consensus? Six out of ten climatologists agree that seven out of ten climatologists believe in AGW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 So what is the consensus on this report? http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/11/18/nasa-admits-winters-going-get-coldermuch-colder/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 So you guys think all these scientists are bought off? That seems pretty silly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 So you guys think all these scientists are bought off? That seems pretty silly No we think they're all working on theory. Those that follow believe they're working on fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 So you guys think all these scientists are bought off? That seems pretty silly If you read the whole thread, you'd know that the answer to your question is 'no'. Like usual, you're assuming without knowing, which in your own words 'seems pretty silly'. But we're used to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 No we think they're all working on theory. Those that follow believe they're working on fact. Oh, they are stupid. Ok... If you read the whole thread, you'd know that the answer to your question is 'no'. Like usual, you're assuming without knowing, which in your own words 'seems pretty silly'. But we're used to that. So they are just wrong and you know better. Ok... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Oh, they are stupid. Ok... So they are just wrong and you know better. Ok... Not stupid, but pushing an agenda. The evidence does match their predictions, so they adjust the evidence, then try and hide the adjustments, and blackball anyone that questions it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Oh, they are stupid. Ok... Yes, yes they are. They are all very stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Not stupid, but pushing an agenda. The evidence does match their predictions, so they adjust the evidence, then try and hide the adjustments, and blackball anyone that questions it. Ah! It's just a conspiracy then! LOL, they all agree on the agenda and control the group somehow. Does this conspiracy have a leader? Yes, yes they are. They are all very stupid. Obviously! Duh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Obviously! Duh! So how long have you been a scientist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Oh, they are stupid. Ok... So they are just wrong and you know better. Ok... Here's the thing, you dick-sucking little simpleton...there's people here who'll look at the facts that exists and the questions that still need answering, and discuss them. That's most of us here. Then there's people who can't begin to understand, and have to fall back on "But other people say...!" because they're such cum-guzzling halfwits that even Special Olympics organizers look at them and say "Wow, you really are a mouthbreathing mongoloid retard, aren't you, you little dipshit?" That's you. Now do the entire world a favor, and go back to ass-!@#$ing your barnyard friends, and shut the ever-lovin' !@#$ up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts