107 replies to this topic

[twylyght]

Take a moment. Give yourself a break. Let the adults talk for a bit without your pestering. Get some ice cream or something.

[mmmbeans]

That's a sloppy Photoshop.

[Delhommey]

That is assuming a number of things to be true. It may well turn out that GHGs impose direct and indirect effects on global mean temperature in ways that we have yet to parse out. I would think it more prudent to first get a firm grasp on our global ecosystem to the point that we can trust a theoretical model to make consistent and accurate predictions before subjecting the world to policies that may or may not be based in truth.

There are still a number of scientists that are not driven by government grants and political ideology that can approach the subject with decorum and ethics. I would behoove us all to take a step back and ask the tough questions that pose some challenges to our preconceived notions that the science is a slam dunk. It is why I brought up the history of failed disciplines/theories. We have a far longer track record of being wrong than we are being right. As we are clever monkies, we are good at finding out what works well for us without fully understanding the why of it.

Because 98% of scientist endorsed phrenology.

Look, we get it. You don't want to believe so you won't, but please stop pulling out every page from Logical Fallacies for Dummies and throwing it up on this message board.

[twylyght]

Because 98% of scientist endorsed phrenology.

Look, we get it. You don't want to believe so you won't, but please stop pulling out every page from Logical Fallacies for Dummies and throwing it up on this message board.

So easy to refute that you have yet to provide a shred of any contribution to the conversation

What's sad is that you think you are clever/smart. What's sadder is that other people think you are as well

[mav1234]

Uhh, you think government grants bias scientists? Do you understand the grant process? Do you understand that most grants that are funded are actually attempting to critically examine current hypotheses, or propose new ones for observed phenomena? How exactly do you propose people *fund research* if you think that government grants make one devoid of decorum and ethics?

I'm curious who these scientists are that are approaching this subject with "decorum and ethics" that think that the jury is still out on if there is any influence of human activity on climate change... because they are in the minority, considering they have no data to support their positions, just speculation.

[twylyght]

There is compelling testimony that Roger Randall Dougan Revelle thought that the political climate at the time was not conducive to reasonable policy based on sound science.

If you think it wrong to question one's motives based on political objectives and funding, then you are as removed from the real world as the opposite end of the spectrum.

[gospodin shuttlesworth]

i like how it's that big gubmint grant money that's skewing the results as if the trillion dollar oil industry isn't heavily invested in bad science in the hopes of somehow refuting global warming

[thatlookseasy]

i like how it's that big gubmint grant money that's skewing the results as if the trillion dollar oil industry isn't heavily invested in bad science in the hopes of somehow refuting global warming

The Senator poses a good question- what would the weather channel's ratings be without the threat of global warming? And I'm willing to bet scientists aren't even considering the effect of Mars wobbles on Earth's climate

[Delhommey]

i like how it's that big gubmint grant money that's skewing the results as if the trillion dollar oil industry isn't heavily invested in bad science in the hopes of somehow refuting global warming

Decorum ain't cheap!

[twylyght]

i like how it's that big gubmint grant money that's skewing the results as if the trillion dollar oil industry isn't heavily invested in bad science in the hopes of somehow refuting global warming

"If you think it wrong to question one's motives based on political objectives and funding, then you are as removed from the real world as the opposite end of the spectrum."

Reading... the more you know

[SZ James]

[gospodin shuttlesworth]

"If you think it wrong to question one's motives based on political objectives and funding, then you are as removed from the real world as the opposite end of the spectrum."

Reading... the more you know

i don't question their motives because of who funds their poo science. i question their poo science. it's you deniers who always end up suggesting that the, what, 99% of scientists who believe that man-made global warming is in fact a problem are just bought and paid for by the big "green" industry

[twylyght]

i don't question their motives because of who funds their poo science. i question their poo science. it's you deniers who always end up suggesting that the, what, 99% of scientists who believe that man-made global warming is in fact a problem are just bought and paid for by the big "green" industry

Your post immediately before this says you question the science because of who funds it.

As usual... fail supreme. The reason you bring nothing of substance to the table is because you have nothing... unlike thatlookseasy

[gospodin shuttlesworth]

dude i'm p sure i already shut you down in another thread like a month ago so let's not say things we can't take back

anyway i said that they were investing in bad science; i didn't say that the science was bad because they were investing in it. however i will pull back on that one a little bit because i seem to remember a story about one of the koch brothers investing in some climate study that ended up actually being consistent with man made climate change so they obviously don't exclusively invest in bad science

[twylyght]

dude i'm p sure i already shut you down in another thread like a month ago so let's not say things we can't take back

anyway i said that they were investing in bad science; i didn't say that the science was bad because they were investing in it. however i will pull back on that one a little bit because i seem to remember a story about one of the koch brothers investing in some climate study that ended up actually being consistent with man made climate change so they obviously don't exclusively invest in bad science

feel free to drop by when you want to post some pictures/drive-by comments that contribute nothing to the conversation