The 97% number, at least if you know who Cook and Oreskes are you'd know what I was posting about. If you don't you should really stop posting their false meme.
The 97% number, at least if you know who Cook and Oreskes are you'd know what I was posting about. If you don't you should really stop posting their false meme.Wow! Two whole papers that you didn't understand. Do you want a ?
So the concensus was debunked was it?
Well then it should be a piece of cake for you to throw down several links to mainstream journals with peer reviewed research that shows how the Earth isn't warming, or the warming that isn't happening isn't being caused by humans, or the warming that isn't happening and isn't caused by humans can't be stopped because China won't commit to the reductions they committed to.
You know, whichever hypothesis you guys subscribe to this week. Oh it should also account for all the observed measurements of ocean land and atmospheric temperatures, the roles of atmospheric gasses, solar output, albedo changes, and already observed economic damages.
Thanks in advance!
You mean you're not getting tired of winning?Here's how this would go. I provide data. You, then berate the source, berate the data and berate me. That's your M.O. It's as reliable as the sun rising in the East. I'm champing at the bit to participate in yet another one of those exercises in futility. /s
I'd like to say that I am sorry that you are so unhappy the majority of the time but that would be a lie because I really don't care. In between getting banned, you have nothing good to say about anyone and anything here. You contribute nothing that is not tainted with anger and malice and in the process repeatedly declare over and over your superiority. The source of your unhappiness is a mystery to me but I have no empathy. You're just a seemingly perpetually angry individual. Your shtick is beyond tiresome.
Guess who's miserable? It's not me.
The 97% number, at least if you know who Cook and Oreskes are you'd know what I was posting about. If you don't you should really stop posting their false meme.
If funding can influence what you call the "debunkers" how does $32.5 billion in federal grants since 1989 not influence what they conclude?I'm also aware of your bought and paid for debunkers and their blatant misrepresentation.
This is NOT even about a real "debate" or an actual "critique on climate science", ie. asking whether or not climate change is man-made. This WOULD actually be a reasonable thing to do and there isn't anything wrong with that, EVEN if common sense would say that in case of doubt it would be healthier/better to side with those who assume that it IS man-made.
There is no such thing as a debate when these people are industry lobbyists where EACH.SINGLE.ONE has a strong bias and agenda against the idea that climate change would be man-made.
The EPA has already proven that corporate profit is more important to them than actual human lives. (How else can you explain that they allow toxic insecticides now....a decision which obviously doesn't "benefit" the environment or actual humans, but ONLY and solely the maker of this pesticide)
And while we're at it, the EPA is just one of these agencies who now under Trump gives a shit and works solely for corporate profits. Same thing with the new head of the FCC now, a dude who has been a lawyer for Verizon and who'd care less about net neutrality etc.
I'm fully aware of how they arrived at the 97% number because like all good peer reviewed scientific studies they documented their process.
I'm also aware of your bought and paid for debunkers and their blatant misrepresentation.
Their misrepresentation was to point out that most of the studies cited didn't specifically say man causing global warming, regardless of the fact that the studies were in support of mainstream climate theory.
Their assumption and yours are there are two sides such that a study would need to specify which they were supporting.
There's not. There's mainstream climate theory which is well supported and describes the evidence and on your side a bunch of unsupported hypotheses.
What's really funny about all this is the Koch brothers already paid for a red team and after investigating he became a converted skeptic.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html
If funding can influence what you call the "debunkers" how does $32.5 billion in federal grants since 1989 not influence what they conclude?
If funding can influence what you call the "debunkers" how does $32.5 billion in federal grants since 1989 not influence what they conclude?
That's what the government has been funding though.I'll take funding a scientific study and not funding a foregone conclusion for $100 Alex
(Wow a whole $1.1B per year it's amazing how little we spend on science.)
That's what the government has been funding though.
Go with the last 8 years then. If funding can skew conclusions then it can do so for anybody. Human nature is human nature.So your argument is the George W. Bush and the Republican controlled congress spent 6-8 years providing funding to climate scientists to prove fossil fuels cause global warming so there use needs to be curtailed.
Well you can believe what you want, (you usually do ) but I'm going with the open and well supported grant process that supplies grants to legitimate scientific investigations regardless of outcome.
Go with the last 8 years then. If funding can skew conclusions then it can do so for anybody. Human nature is human nature.
Why would they be rescinded if they are giving the government what they want?No. I'll go with what you stated:
While funding can skew conclusions the point you miss is that government scientific grants will be rescinded if the scientists in question skew their results in an in scientific way to reach a predetermined conclusion.
- Since 1989 the government has spent $32B in grants on climate change
- The government was paying for a conclusion
While industry funded lawyers who post on skeptic climate blogs will lose funding if they don't skew their posts.
See the difference?
Why would they be rescinded if they are giving the government what they want?
No I don't. I don't think its that simple and neither do you.So you reaffirm, you believe George Bush, Dick Cheney and the republicans want to skew the science to show fossil fuels cause MMGW.
No. I'll go with what you stated:
While funding can skew conclusions the point you miss is that government scientific grants will be rescinded if the scientists in question skew their results in an unscientific way to reach a predetermined conclusion.
- Since 1989 the government has spent $32B in grants on climate change
- The government was paying for
While industry funded lawyers who post on skeptic climate blogs will lose funding if they don't skew their posts.
See the difference?
No I don't. I don't think its that simple and neither do you.
Is this a long winded way of saying that you don't think it is as simple as Bush throwing money at studies he likes?So what other science conclusions has the government picked?
LIGO detection of gravitational waves?
AMS dark matter results?
Gravity Probe Bs confirmation of Frame Dragging
The process for scientific grants is open as are the submissions that are accepted as are their results.
There's no evidence of selecting foregone conclusions but you believe there is.
So how far does your faith go. What scientific winners and losers is the government picking according to your belief. It's not just climate and evolution right?
No we are exploring your pathology here. You believe things that provably aren't true and I'd like to explore how far the delusion goes.Is this a long winded way of saying that you don't think it is as simple as Bush throwing money at studies he likes?
I'm not interested in that topic. The POTUS doesn't personally pick what studies get funded as you dishonestly implied. It was a bad argument, accept it and move on.No we are exploring your pathology here. You believe things that provably aren't true and I'd like to explore how far the delusion goes.
Is it just climate change where government grants are used to pick the outcome or is it other scientific fields as well?
I'm not interested in that topic. The POTUS doesn't personally pick what studies get funded as you dishonestly implied. It was a bad argument, accept it and move on.
Out of curiosity what does the average climate scientist make?