Global Cooling!?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Since 1998 there has been a slight decrease in Global Temps!

 

How the hell did that happen???

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...09/ixworld.html

[ArnieBragg 1]

Why are you re-fiing now when you have 2 years left on your 4.25? And then another 2 at 6.25? I wouldn't a thing until 2010 unless rates drop dramatically. You might even move between now and then. Take out a home equity for the 10K and pay it off as quickly as you can. Leave the mortgage alone. That's what I would do.

 

3 of my best friends OWN mortgage companies, and NONE of them have a fixed rate on any of their properties. They adivised me against them and it makes sense. In 5 years time there is a great chance of moving or re-fiing, why not go with the lower rate.

[TyCobb 0]

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I thought the lefties would be posting links to Algore speeches by now.

[EMoney 0]

That's what we call climate change. Now you're catching on.

[FranksTanks 0]

(Filed: 09/04/2006)

Global Warming Skepticism at its finest!

 

Global Warming Skeptics: A Primer

In 1998, Exxon devised a plan to stall action on global warming. The plan was outlined in an internal memo (see the memo [PDF]). It promised, "Victory will be achieved when uncertainties in climate science become part of the conventional wisdom" for "average citizens" and "the media."

 

The company would recruit and train new scientists who lack a "history of visibility in the climate debate" and develop materials depicting supporters of action to cut greenhouse gas emissions as "out of touch with reality."

 

Individual Skeptics

 

* Dennis Avery

* Sallie L. Baliunas

* Robert C. Balling

* David Bellamy

* Bob Carter

* Ian Castles

* John R. Christy

* Ian Clark

* Paul Driessen

* Andrei Illarionov, chief economic adviser to Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin

* Aynsley Kellow

* William Kininmonth

* Richard S. Lindzen

* Bjorn Lomborg

* Stephen McIntyre

* Ross McKitrick

* Patrick J. Michaels

* Alan Moran

* Alan Oxley

* Garth Paltridge

* Tim Patterson

* S. Fred Singer

* Carlo Stagnaro

* Philip Stott

* Wolfgang Thüne

* Jan Veizer

* Lord Lawson

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title...ing_controversy

 

 

So fock you and your "lefties" bullsh!t RP. Go spread your propaganda elsewhere.

[paulinstl 295]

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/spam5.gif

[Ilov80s 0]

I searched through Eastern Michigan University and Google Scholar's libraries. In there you will find that the overwhelming majority of research points to a change in the global temperature being greatly influenced by man's releasing of CO2. A significant majority of the findings indicate that the process is likely to be bad for earth, man, vegetation, soil, and animal life.

[Concrete Charlie 0]

Looks like there is something going on with the planet's temperature, and human infestation is probably a contributing factor in it. How much of a factor, i have no idea and i doubt anyone does. Temps have risen and fallen throughout the planets history, as far as we know. But with all the emissions we put in the air and the heat of our cities, it wouldn't surprise me that we are helping the temps rise.

 

But it is not the Earth's problem, so much as it is ours. Maybe our time is at hand already - we've only been here an extremely brief period when you consider the age of the Earth.

 

I think the problem with trying to clamp down on industrial pollution, and heat radiating from population centers, is that the developing world(mostly India, China, south Asia) is just now taking over from this country, and Europe, as the major manufacturing region on the Earth. They're not going let the climate change theory stop them from polluting far more than we ever did, there's too much money to be made and too much power to be had.

 

If we are in fact, causing conditions that will result in a runaway greenhouse, we as a species are already screwed. The Earth will simply get rid of the problem(us) and start anew.

[MrSpanky 0]

i've always thought the earth is just using us for plastic.

 

 

 

Looks like there is something going on with the planet's temperature, and human infestation is probably a contributing factor in it. How much of a factor, i have no idea and i doubt anyone does. Temps have risen and fallen throughout the planets history, as far as we know. But with all the emissions we put in the air and the heat of our cities, it wouldn't surprise me that we are helping the temps rise.

 

But it is not the Earth's problem, so much as it is ours. Maybe our time is at hand already - we've only been here an extremely brief period when you consider the age of the Earth.

 

I think the problem with trying to clamp down on industrial pollution, and heat radiating from population centers, is that the developing world(mostly India, China, south Asia) is just now taking over from this country, and Europe, as the major manufacturing region on the Earth. They're not going let the climate change theory stop them from polluting far more than we ever did, there's too much money to be made and too much power to be had.

 

If we are in fact, causing conditions that will result in a runaway greenhouse, we as a species are already screwed. The Earth will simply get rid of the problem(us) and start anew.

 

 

agreed. we aren't killing this planet. we are just making it uninhabitual for humans.

[TyCobb 0]

Climate of Fear

Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.

 

BY RICHARD LINDZEN (for you, Paulinsti )

Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

 

There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?

 

The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.

 

But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

 

 

 

 

 

To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.

If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.

 

So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested--a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences--as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union--formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation.

 

All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.

 

Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.

 

And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen.

 

 

 

 

 

Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.

M. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

 

--------

 

There you go, Paul. Go ahead and slander the guy ... he's obviously not very smart, being a professor at MIT and all.

[Korben Dallas 0]

Climate of Fear

Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.

 

BY RICHARD LINDZEN (for you, Paulinsti )

Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

 

There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?

 

The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.

 

But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.

If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.

 

So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested--a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences--as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union--formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation.

 

All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.

 

Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.

 

And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen.

Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.

M. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

 

--------

 

There you go, Paul. Go ahead and slander the guy ... he's obviously not very smart, being a professor at MIT and all.

 

 

Prof. Lindzen is also one of the IPCC 5 that work for oil companies to write articles just like this.

 

Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC.

 

The only reason he's at MIT is because of the revenue he generates. (and he's smart as hell).

 

Being a climate "confuser" is big business-coal and oil pay out millions each year in lobbying, hacks like Lindzen and fake articles to keep science from advancing of the issue.

 

Perhaps you'd like to follow this up with a Singer card....he's the only one more corrupt.

[cinciman7 2]

We're all gonna die!

[phillybear 364]

We're all gonna die!

 

 

[TyCobb 0]

hacks like Lindzen and fake articles to keep science from advancing of the issue.

 

Right on cue.

[FranksTanks 0]

Right on cue.

 

Yep, he was right on cue and right on the facts. Nice try though, you should have learned from RP and taken that BS somewhere else.

That guy is a proven fraud who accepts money from..... just read what I wrote earlier and what Korban wrote again, I'm sick of repeating myself.

 

 

I just thought this was funny:

 

In November 2004, climate change skeptic Richard Lindzen was quoted saying he'd be willing to bet that the earth's climate will be cooler in 20 years than it is today. When British climate researcher James Annan contacted him, however, Lindzen would only agree to take the bet if Annan offered a 50-to-1 payout. Subsequent offers of a wager were also refused by Pat Michaels, Chip Knappenberger, Piers Corbyn, Myron Ebell, Zbigniew Jaworowski, Sherwood Idso and William Kininmonth. At long last, however, Annan has persuaded Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev to take a $10,000 bet. "There isn't much money in climate science and I'm still looking for that gold watch at retirement," Annan says. "A pay-off would be a nice top-up to my pension."link

[Recliner Pilot 61]

`I love it!

 

If someone accepts a speaking fee from the oil industry he automatically becomes a "hack" and is discredited forever.

[MDC 5,890]

`I love it!

 

If someone accepts a speaking fee from the oil industry he automatically becomes a "hack" and is discredited forever.

 

Aren't you the same tool who said that global warming is a conspiracy theory designed by scientists to keep themselves in research grants? That makes a lot of sense, but of course the oil industry doesn't have any financial interest in this.

 

Try to get your entire head in front of the shotgun this time, numbnuts.

[FranksTanks 0]

`I love it!

 

If someone accepts a speaking fee from the oil industry he automatically becomes a "hack" and is discredited forever.

 

You're right, speaking fees...

 

Richard Lindzen

Member, Science and Economic Advisory Council

The Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy

The Annapolis Center received $27,500 from ExxonMobil Corporate Giving in 2003.

Contributing Writer

The Cato Institute

The Cato Institute received $25,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 2003.

Contributing Writer

Techcentralstation.com

Tech Central Station received $95,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 2003.

Link

 

 

Keep 'em coming smartypants!

[Recliner Pilot 61]

..............and your point is?

 

Does taking a speaking fee from somone mean thay own you?

[FranksTanks 0]

..............and your point is?

 

Does taking a speaking fee from somone mean thay own you?

 

 

Own? No. Less capable of bias? Most likely.

It means Exxon probably wouldn't be paying all of these people if they weren't writing or telling people what Exxon wants the people to here. It's a devised plan to deceive sheep like you, all in the interest of the oil industries sky rocketing profits. Don't be so dense.

[D_House 0]

Going to Happy Hour tonight!

 

 

And half day of work tomorrow before heading up to NYC!

 

[FranksTanks 0]

Going to Happy Hour tonight!

 

 

And half day of work tomorrow before heading up to NYC!

 

 

It's the perfect time of year for happy hour! I need to do the same.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Less capable of bias? Most likely.

 

Make up your mind.

[FranksTanks 0]

Make up your mind.

 

Sorry, I should have put less capable of being unbiased.

Why did Exxon pay them? Do think they are giving fair and accurate reports when being paid off by Exxon?

[Ilov80s 0]

You're right, speaking fees...

 

Richard Lindzen

Member, Science and Economic Advisory Council

The Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy

The Annapolis Center received $27,500 from ExxonMobil Corporate Giving in 2003.

Contributing Writer

The Cato Institute

The Cato Institute received $25,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 2003.

Contributing Writer

Techcentralstation.com

Tech Central Station received $95,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 2003.

Link

Keep 'em coming smartypants!

 

 

The question is: Are their findings slamming global warming because Exxon is giving them money or is Exxon giving them money because their findings slam global warming?

[FranksTanks 0]

The question is: Are their findings slamming global warming because Exxon is giving them money or is Exxon giving them money because their findings slam global warming?

 

But where is the money in proving global warming exists? If global warming was a scam and was so obviously bunk, why would the fat cat oil execs give a damn?

[Vikings4ever 496]

But where is the money in proving global warming exists?

Where do you think all the money given to environmental groups goes?

[Ilov80s 0]

But where is the money in proving global warming exists? If global warming was a scam and was so obviously bunk, why would the fat cat oil execs give a damn?

 

Well here are two possible answers:

 

- The US government/public money funds a great deal of the research done on the climate. If it was proven that global warming is not happening, then that could result in a major loss of both jobs and oppurtunities for that area of the scientific community. Just as certain government regimes may use fear to justify their existance, scientists can justify their funding with fear. Whats more likely to draw more funding: impending world doom or a natural fluxuation of earth's climate?

 

- Perhaps there is no firm conclusion yet. Scientific research tends to create more questions then answers. Maybe both sides have legitimate data to support them.

[FranksTanks 0]

Well here are two possible answers:

 

- The US government/public money funds a great deal of the research done on the climate. If it was proven that global warming is not happening, then that could result in a major loss of both jobs and oppurtunities for that area of the scientific community. Just as certain government regimes may use fear to justify their existance, scientists can justify their funding with fear. Whats more likely to draw more funding: impending world doom or a natural fluxuation of earth's climate?

 

- Perhaps there is no firm conclusion yet. Scientific research tends to create more questions then answers. Maybe both sides have legitimate data to support them.

 

Sure, but there are no large gains out of that in the scientific community. The government could care less about who they fund and the jobs it creates, if it's false and proven to be a waste of time, they'll cut their asses right out of the budget.

The oil industry has more to lose; it couldn't be more obvious why they are involved. Therefore, in my opinion, I wouldn’t trust them or the people on their payroll. That’s all.

[Vikings4ever 496]

Sure, but there are no large gains out of that in the scientific community. The government could care less about who they fund and the jobs it creates, if it's false and proven to be a waste of time, they'll cut their asses right out of the budget.

The oil industry has more to lose; it couldn't be more obvious why they are involved. Therefore, in my opinion, I wouldn’t trust them or the people on their payroll. That’s all.

Would you trust people on the payroll of environmental groups?

[FranksTanks 0]

Would you trust people on the payroll of environmental groups?

 

Why wouldn't I? What do they truly get out of this? I am not aware of any environmental groups that make billions of billions of dollars a year.

The wacko environuts that burn down ski lodges and do sh!t like that I don't, but I doubt they have much to do with the respected scientific community.

[Ilov80s 0]

Sure, but there are no large gains out of that in the scientific community. The government could care less about who they fund and the jobs it creates, if it's false and proven to be a waste of time, they'll cut their asses right out of the budget.

The oil industry has more to lose; it couldn't be more obvious why they are involved. Therefore, in my opinion, I wouldn’t trust them or the people on their payroll. That’s all.

 

Frank you are really missing the point. You said it yourself, "if it's false and proven to be a waste of time, they'll (government) cut their asses right out of the budget". There jobs are on the line.

[Vikings4ever 496]

Why wouldn't I? What do they truly get out of this? I am not aware of any environmental groups that make billions of billions of dollars a year.

The wacko environuts that burn down ski lodges and do sh!t like that I don't, but I doubt they have much to do with the respected scientific community.

Scientists on the payroll of oil=unreliable

Scientists on the payroll of environmental groups=reliable?

 

No matter who is funding the scientists, if the scientists provide conclusions that their funders don't like, the money gets cut off. Environmental groups want there to be global warming, as they can scare people into giving them more money. Industry wants there to be no global warming as it will cost them money. What the government wants depends on who is in power, and who is destributing the money.

 

Bottom line, research tends to go the way the funders want. Any other results get buried and the funding cut.

[SUXBNME 1,328]

Scientists on the payroll of oil=unreliable

Scientists on the payroll of environmental groups=reliable?

 

 

Bottom line, research tends to go the way the funders want. Any other results get buried and the funding cut.

 

 

 

 

Hmmmm....where have I heard this before?

[Vikings4ever 496]

 

Hmmmm....where have I heard this before?

 

State of Fear, by Michael Crichton

 

[FranksTanks 0]

Frank you are really missing the point. You said it yourself, "if it's false and proven to be a waste of time, they'll (government) cut their asses right out of the budget". There jobs are on the line.

 

I doubt scientist change their information in fear of lossing the peanuts they already make. They are already in fear of probably have their budgets cut right out from under them regardless. I could see some changing for a large chunk of change from an outside source like the oil industry. Sorry, I just don't trust Exxon and the people they pay to come up with sh!t. I won't budge from that.

[SUXBNME 1,328]

State of Fear, by Michael Crichton

 

 

Yep...Great book

[FranksTanks 0]

Scientists on the payroll of oil=unreliable

Scientists on the payroll of environmental groups=reliable?

 

No matter who is funding the scientists, if the scientists provide conclusions that their funders don't like, the money gets cut off. Environmental groups want there to be global warming, as they can scare people into giving them more money. Industry wants there to be no global warming as it will cost them money. What the government wants depends on who is in power, and who is destributing the money.

 

Bottom line, research tends to go the way the funders want. Any other results get buried and the funding cut.

 

You really keep making the "environmental groups" out to being some sort of specific entity or cash cow similar to the oil industry. There is no comparison really.

[D_House 0]

Frank you are really missing the point. You said it yourself, "if it's false and proven to be a waste of time, they'll (government) cut their asses right out of the budget". There jobs are on the line.

I think you are making a pretty strong accusation here. The scientific community has a peer review process that is instrumental in maintaining the integrity and honesty of published research. As a molecular biologist-in-training, I really don't like the idea of nonexperts deciding that scientists are bullshitting their work in order to maintain funding for their labs or to keep their jobs.

 

All science careers are results-driven, how then are we supposed to trust any scientific discovery?