Fox News: 120% Of The Public Thinks Scientists May Falsify GW Data

[Arrqh]

OOPS!
Scientist: Carbon Dioxide Doesn't Cause Global Warming



Never mind. Since it contradicts the religion of Global Warming as preached by the Right Reverend AlGore, the article is clearly wrong

Why do you reject what all the scientists who disagree with you say and agree without question when a single scientist agrees with your predetermined viewpoint? And what does Al Gore have anything at all to do with science?

 

[MarianLH]

OOPS!
Scientist: Carbon Dioxide Doesn't Cause Global Warming



Never mind. Since it contradicts the religion of Global Warming as preached by the Right Reverend AlGore, the article is clearly wrong

This H. Leighton Steward? The former oil company executive, former chairman of the U.S. Oil and Gas Association, former chairman of the Natural Gas Supply Association, and current honorary director of the American Petroleum Institute?

Yeah, he's just some scientist.

Did you research his background or search for his published, peer-reviewed research before evaluating his claims? I did. Now which of us is guilty of blind faith again?


Marian

 

[Lindley]

In the short term it doesn't even matter whether or not global warming is happening.

Taste the air in Los Angeles. Then taste the air on a mountainside in Vermont. Is there really any debate that pollution is a bad thing?

 

[MarianLH]

And what does Al Gore have anything at all to do with science?

In researching climate change, one thing I've noticed is that some denialists have an obsessive fixation on Al Gore. They have this image in their heads of him as a cult leader, and we're worried about climate change not because the evidence is persuasive, but because we're his sheeplike followers.

The reality, of course, is that he doesn't have any kind of leadership position. He's just some guy who, like the rest of us, was convinced by the evidence, except he has some celebrity he can use in promoting the issue. And even that's relatively recent. Before An Inconvenient Truth he was barely even on the radar (except as the guy who ran the worst presidential campaign since Michael Dukakis, that is).

It's kind of like assuming Chuck Norris runs the Republican Party because he campaigned for McCain. Correction: it's kind of like assuming Chuck Norris has always run the Republican Party, since its founding, because he campaigned for McCain.


Marian


ETA: I just totally set myself up for a "Chuck Norris Facts" joke, didn't I?

 

[AnyStar]

^ Chuck Norris doesnt "run" anything, you do it on your own so he doesnt own you!

 

[bigdaddy]

We report, you decide if it's made up bullshit!

 

[ThankQ]

As far as the weather issue, it's more likely that it's a sham that these eggheads and politicians stand to make billions of dollars off than anything else.

This type of thinking used to bother me. To those who say people are making up climate change data, you ask them, "why would they do that?" and they reply, "to make money". Of course, that is absurd, but I think it's just a matter of projection of motivations. We all have a tendency to assume that which motivates us is what motivates others as well. Some people simply don't understand that making money is not what motivates some people. That money matters above all else is such a deep truth to them they aren't able to realize that to others, its not the motivating factor.

So I can actually forgive, somewhat, TLS for thinking the way he does. It's not his fault, it's how he's made.

However, TLS, the climate change crisis is about saving lives, not making money for scientists.

The scientists who want to make a pile go and work for Dupont, Seimens or BASF. They don't go dig Antarctic ice cores for four months of the year.

 

[Gertch]

So I can actually forgive, somewhat, TLS for thinking the way he does. It's not his fault, it's how he's made.

Interesting way to try and discredit another poster.

However, TLS, the climate change crisis is about saving lives, not making money for scientists.

However your assumption is wrong. Global Warming, er, Climate Change has always been about power. Grabbing control and money from the people. Age old story.

http://tinyurl.com/ya6yppe

Since 1990, Jones has received $22 million in grant funding. Of that, $19 million was just in the period from 2000 to 2006 – nearly $3 million per year. Most of the grants came from government agencies including the U.S. Department of Energy and the European Union. Jones has been forced to step down temporarily while an investigation is conducted into his actions.


Michael Mann of Penn State University, another central figure in Climategate, benefited from a great deal of grant money as well. He drew in $5.6 million in grants this decade, most of it from the U.S. taxpayer through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Much like with Jones’ funding, Mann has benefitted mostly in the last five years. He is as well being investigated by his employer.

If you don't like that link there are many others along the same line.

 

[ThankQ]

Oh, there is a lot of money involved. I never said otherwise. That research grants have been abused is not that shocking. To assume that most are being misused is quite a leap.

It seems you're good at leaping... from one fact, "Some have abused grants" to "cliamate change is about money" to "climate change, if it exists, is nothing to worry about". With all this leaping, you must be guided by Al, an observer from your own time who appears in the form of a hologram that only Gertch can see or hear.

 

[PlixTixiplik]

So I can actually forgive, somewhat, TLS for thinking the way he does. It's not his fault, it's how he's made.

Interesting way to try and discredit another poster.

However, TLS, the climate change crisis is about saving lives, not making money for scientists.

However your assumption is wrong. Global Warming, er, Climate Change has always been about power. Grabbing control and money from the people. Age old story.

http://tinyurl.com/ya6yppe

Since 1990, Jones has received $22 million in grant funding. Of that, $19 million was just in the period from 2000 to 2006 – nearly $3 million per year. Most of the grants came from government agencies including the U.S. Department of Energy and the European Union. Jones has been forced to step down temporarily while an investigation is conducted into his actions.


Michael Mann of Penn State University, another central figure in Climategate, benefited from a great deal of grant money as well. He drew in $5.6 million in grants this decade, most of it from the U.S. taxpayer through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Much like with Jones’ funding, Mann has benefitted mostly in the last five years. He is as well being investigated by his employer.

If you don't like that link there are many others along the same line.

It's interesting how people like Gertch deliberately lie and mislead when they have nothing else and are incapable of understanding the science. Considering that scientists do not receive salary from those research grants, I'm not sure what any of that proves. It's not like Michael Mann is sitting around in a $5.6 million pile of money! That money goes to companies like ThermoFinnegan to buy ridiculously expensive pieces of equipment like mass spectrometers, or to graduate students so they can buy enough Ramen noodles to eat each month. This comes up in every thread (on this very board no less), people point out the idiocy of the claim, and yet it's trotted out over and over again in a display of poor reading comprehension or willful ignorance.

Also, anyone who doesn't think that CO2 causes climate change are woefully uninformed about the most important long-term control on climate (hint, it's atmospheric CO2 levels). The fact that people can argue, with a straight face, that greenhouse gas emissions don't drive climate change - when we have things like the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum - is truly laughable.

 

[Marc]

So I can actually forgive, somewhat, TLS for thinking the way he does. It's not his fault, it's how he's made.

Interesting way to try and discredit another poster.
However your assumption is wrong. Global Warming, er, Climate Change has always been about power. Grabbing control and money from the people. Age old story.

http://tinyurl.com/ya6yppe

Since 1990, Jones has received $22 million in grant funding. Of that, $19 million was just in the period from 2000 to 2006 – nearly $3 million per year. Most of the grants came from government agencies including the U.S. Department of Energy and the European Union. Jones has been forced to step down temporarily while an investigation is conducted into his actions.


Michael Mann of Penn State University, another central figure in Climategate, benefited from a great deal of grant money as well. He drew in $5.6 million in grants this decade, most of it from the U.S. taxpayer through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Much like with Jones’ funding, Mann has benefitted mostly in the last five years. He is as well being investigated by his employer.

If you don't like that link there are many others along the same line.

It's interesting how people like Gertch deliberately lie and mislead when they have nothing else and are incapable of understanding the science. Considering that scientists do not receive salary from those research grants, I'm not sure what any of that proves. It's not like Michael Mann is sitting around in a $5.6 million pile of money! That money goes to companies like ThermoFinnegan to buy ridiculously expensive pieces of equipment like mass spectrometers, or to graduate students so they can buy enough Ramen noodles to eat each month. This comes up in every thread (on this very board no less), people point out the idiocy of the claim, and yet it's trotted out over and over again in a display of poor reading comprehension or willful ignorance.

Also, anyone who doesn't think that CO2 causes climate change are woefully uninformed about the most important long-term control on climate (hint, it's atmospheric CO2 levels). The fact that people can argue, with a straight face, that greenhouse gas emissions don't drive climate change - when we have things like the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum - is truly laughable.

ignorance is bliss when something doesn't suit your political view point...

 

[Squiggy]

Of that, $19 million was just in the period from 2000 to 2006 – nearly $3 million per year.

So...Bush is to blame?

 

[nevermore]

I like when people hide thier biased links behind "tinyurl".

Gertch's source? http://www.climatechangefraud.com/

 

[Tim]

I like when people hide thier biased links behind "tinyurl".

Gertch's source? http://www.climatechangefraud.com/

Excellent. My laugh for the week.

 

[sidious618]

I like when people hide thier biased links behind "tinyurl".

Gertch's source? http://www.climatechangefraud.com/

With a title like that it's gotta be true!

 

[The Castellan]

Interesting way to try and discredit another poster.
However your assumption is wrong. Global Warming, er, Climate Change has always been about power. Grabbing control and money from the people. Age old story.

If you don't like that link there are many others along the same line.

It's interesting how people like Gertch deliberately lie and mislead when they have nothing else and are incapable of understanding the science. Considering that scientists do not receive salary from those research grants, I'm not sure what any of that proves. It's not like Michael Mann is sitting around in a $5.6 million pile of money! That money goes to companies like ThermoFinnegan to buy ridiculously expensive pieces of equipment like mass spectrometers, or to graduate students so they can buy enough Ramen noodles to eat each month. This comes up in every thread (on this very board no less), people point out the idiocy of the claim, and yet it's trotted out over and over again in a display of poor reading comprehension or willful ignorance.

Also, anyone who doesn't think that CO2 causes climate change are woefully uninformed about the most important long-term control on climate (hint, it's atmospheric CO2 levels). The fact that people can argue, with a straight face, that greenhouse gas emissions don't drive climate change - when we have things like the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum - is truly laughable.

ignorance is bliss when something doesn't suit your political view point...

Or when you wanna control masses, that is, keeping them in ignorant bliss.

 

[RJDiogenes]

How about if we stop making this personal and stick to a discussion of facts and opinions? Thank you.

 

[TheBrew]

That has been getting difficult since some posters seem to be incapable of discussing facts.

I suggest you close down this thread as it is quickly devolving and it would save some posters any more embarrassment.

 

[SPOCKED]

That has been getting difficult since some posters seem to be incapable of discussing facts.

Facts? You mean your facts.

I suggest you close down this thread as it is quickly devolving and it would save some posters any more embarrassment.

"Some" posters want a civil discussion on this topic - the only embarrassment I see is with the litany of cheap shots. Thats the only thing that needs to close.

 

[Roger Wilco]

I would still like the climate change deniers here to answer my question how they can possibly think humanity is not capable of doing such things to our planet considering all the things we've demonstrably done already.
Maybe you disagree that humans are responsible for this problem or disagree that there's a problem at all - ok. But denying that humans could do this altogether is just laughable imo.