Are you a scientist? Have you ever worked in a research facility? Have you ever been funded or worked under a grant? Now, I am not saying that all research is compromised but conclusions often are not conclusive in most research. Consider asking why? Fact is that we are better off because of global warming. The cost of living will be much higher and enduring if we were to turn the the heat off. This is not to say that we should not concern ourselves to some extent in reviewing our own footprint but to ultimately belief that we are really a player in the earth mechanism is just well, a human thing.
Interned while in college...on projects here in San Diego and in Pasadena. I'm well aware of the grant process, and the completely horrifying way scientists attack each others work. Which makes the deniers even more obtuse in the constant remarks how "the scientist are in this together." I think if you look at the projections, which currently seem to be coming true, climate change isn't simply turning the heat off. The changes in sea levels, snow packs, rainy seasons, and desert belts are going to create havoc if they come true.
No kidding. It is a coal powered car. The stupid climate change clowns miss that part. Whats your point? No shit they made money. That is what most people who are in business intend to do. Exxon had to put out billions to get what is I am sure a small return on their investment. Your profit margin is much higher selling tires than Exxon's selling oil/gas. Not to mention they did something to EARN said profit instead of taking it from someone to give to another. There is no doubt the earth is getting warmer. Saying man has anything to do with it is complete nonsense. The earth warmed and cooled long before man was hear and will continue when we are gone. The amount of green house gases we put into the atmosphere are statistically insignificant compared to earths natural fluctuations.
Actually, I don't accept the strawman that was set up. You want to compare the earnings of the scientists to the earnings of industries. The point was that their jobs rely on toeing the global warming party line, not that those scientists are personally earning the equivalent of the profits of an entire industry. The billions being handed-out to green industries are taxpayer dollars that have nothing to do with running a successful business, quite the opposite. They're targeted at propping up industries that can't make a product that can compete in the marketplace. And you have noooooooo problem believing that the scientists are looking out for their own well being and producing the results their employers want, and noooooooooooo problem discounting the opinions of other reputable scientists who disagree with them. Climategate exposed the sham they are calling research.
Because they're paid to disagree with him. Many more who aren't paid to express a particular opinion disagree. For some reason you think it's logical to discount any opinion not bought and paid for. Have you even investigated the source of that 97% figure?
That is an interesting and convincing statistic, and it's true. At least to the extent that those scientests find it "very likely" that it exists. Not sure what the % would be if you phrased the question like "How many of you are absolutely certain it exists?" Probably a lower number. How about staking your mother's life on it? Maybe a little lower. So does that constitute fact? What does? So in looking up your stat I came across an interesting quote in a discussion of the Scientific Method: And then there's this little beauty. I wonder what % of scientists believed in Global Cooling?
It seems as though that 97% number came from This Survey. But that's just one survey. And 97% of those folks are employed by the government or climate change organizations (it's everywhere). Even Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), says there is no consensus. He was asked, "When scientists say ‘the debate on climate change is over’, what exactly do they mean — and what don’t they mean?" Jones responded, "I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view." Q&A with Phil Jones It's just too complex an issue. Sorry, not going to just roll over for anyone. A healthy skepticism is, well, healthy.
Yeap, there is. Solar, wind power, used oil recycling companies, Alternative fuel companies, electric cars . . . need I continue? Al Gore wouldn't be investing if there wasn't a return would he? Oh yeah, FAIL on your part.
To use your own argument against you ... how would the climatologists know anything about the amount of greenhouse gases and such that are being emitted by the earth to disagree with any of it? They aren't geologists, environmentalists, etc that study the release of those gases to know the % of naturally released gases versus the amount produced by man. Therefore, their opinions on the causes of the change in the climate don't matter.
Was that the same research group that place their weather station right next to the barrel the urban outdoorsman used to keep themselves warm at night?
Funny thing is I have no skin in the game so my judgement isn't clouded by money. I figured you wouldn't touch the other comments.
Scientists, Exxon, Green companies et.al are out to make a buck. Nothing new there. I figured that was a given. So what do we do about all the money the gubment gave to scientists for research that then became technology and in turn gave us thriving businesses? Are those people not "earning" something? Not everything can be privately funded, and at times research into something didn't show us anything useful for years. No private company could do that, but with the gubments support we end up with Quantum physics, and in turn we end up with all these amazing electronic devices that we have now. Most would agree that our development of these technologies is partially responsible for our place as an economic superpower. Do we turn the tap off now?
