I have no idea what point you think you were making, or what you're referring to. The point I was making is that referring to the work of a scientist as scientific research doesn't make it so. It has to actually follow established research parameters in order to have validity.
Couldn't have said it better, so it's worth quoting/repeating. What happens after an ice age? The Earth warms back up.
You really think that private companies don't spend years in research that results in dead ends? How about evil drug companies for starters. Are you really crediting the US Government with the development of quantum theory?
I think the sequence of events is summed up nicely in the documentary film from 1982... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVT0yr07a7g
And how many awesome products were found/discovered/invented by mistake while working on other stuff? Kevlar, WD-40 and Viagra are some big ones.
Capitalism is the reason we are a superpower. H8R I think you are still a bit confused on where the government gets its money. Barry doesn't have a big ole piggybank.
I don't see the correlation that you are trying to tie here? Scientist may well attack each other work but those attack are a direct function of funds available. Even at its worst, minimum funds, Scientist will criticize other's work since they need to prove that they know a better way to do the research but leave no doubt that on very few instant will a scientist speak on the futility of a funded research. If you as an individual believe that you, we, are that significant, go ahead and turn the heat off. As far as the globe is concern, my point is that we do not have as great an impact as some claim. I don't believe to have ever claimed that global warming does or does not exist. I subscribe to the theory that the globe itself is a magnificent machine and man is but just one of many species that has been on it for wonderful ride. Do I believe that we can do more to minimize our impact sure. However, the impact that I refer to is the impact that our action have on one another, not on the globe. I welcome any one to challenge my carbon footprint. And, it was a pleasure to meet you and your gang. Now I definitely know I can take your hippie ass.
I'll swear! We've been over this so many times it's not even fun anymore because this discussion hasn't evolved one inch in the past 4 or 5 years. We've pretty well decided that both arguments, pro and con, have legs so what we need to start looking at is, what are the alternatives at the present? Right now, oil and gas, or simply fossil fuels, is pretty well it. Do you agree? I would also like to hear what is wrong with the oil companies earning a profit? Should they be denied that? H8R, what do you think we need to do right now?
Some of y'all seem to have forgotten, or have chosen to forget that Muller is funded by the Koch bros.
Which is bad why exactly? I guess you don't have a problem vilifying anything funded by Soros then? Mikey Moore? The federal government? Or is it just anything that has even a dime given to them by a couple obscure brothers?
Where did I vilify??? My point is that so many posters claim that the scientist(s) slant their reports at the whim of their funders. The Koch bros are Far FAR from advocates of "global warming" or "climate change". OBTW, you might want to look at my actual posts rather than making UN-founded guesses. I have vilified the goobermint and Fat-ass Moore on more than one occasion. Soros has never been that much on my radar. I don't use the same Conspiracy Theorist model you appear to use.
Wait, wait, wait.... You're saying scientists for, for example, drug corporations can reach conclusions that will debunk their initial hypotheses and thusly end funding for their current project and do so without bias, but privately funded climate scientists can't??
