NASA weight in on the Global Warming denialist campaign

TheDanold said:
There are certainly extremists on both sides, I will give you that.
But how does Exxon fire or hire anyone on the government's payroll, or university professors for that matter?

And have you ever seen anyone on the right threaten the life (or even decertification) of anyone who espouses the notion of humans causing global warming?
Clearly the extremism is far more severe on the envirolefty side, judging by the methods they are willing to go to to silence dissent.
Click to expand...

They get people fired thru various hidden menas. Lobbyists for one.
 
Blackflag said:
I have seen rightys blow up a building and murder people at abortion clinics and call John McCain with death threats so whats ur point exactly?
Click to expand...
I've seen lefties smash McDonalds, the unabomber and fight with police, but let's leave them all out and stick to apples to apples comparisons with those actions pertaining to dealing with the other side on climate change.
 
It's always good to see actual facts posted, instead of generalizing comments like "Very few scientists take oil money, even the one case I think I remember it amounted to a few thousand, which is peanuts over their lifetime."
 
TheDanold said:
I've seen lefties smash McDonalds, the unabomber and fight with police, but let's leave them all out and stick to apples to apples comparisons with those actions pertaining to dealing with the other side on climate change.
Click to expand...



Lefties smash starbucks too so what is your dumb point this time?
 
Cypress said:
Its time to post this:

1) All of the major scientific bodies and organizations on the entire Planet, who have expertise in climate science, agree that human activities are contributing to global warming/global climate change:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
United States National Academy of Science
American Meteorological Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Astronomical Society
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Geological Society of America
U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

plus, The National Science Academies of:
Canada
France
Germany
Italy
Japan
Russia
United Kingdom
Australia
China
Belgium
Brazil
the Carribean
India
Indonesia
Ireland
Malaysia
New Zealand
Sweden


2) Peer Reviewed Scientific Research.

One of America’s most respected scientific journals (Science Magazine), conducted a huge survey of the peer reviewed scientific literature pertaining to global warming.

Their survey found that since 1993, there have been no (zero) peer-reviewed published research papers that has disagreed with, or debunked, the consensus position on anthropogenic global climate change.*

* http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686



3) Political Consensus-- All the major world political leaders on the planet - including George Bush - agree than human activities and human greenhouse emissions, are impacting climate change. And that human emissions need to be curtailed, or reduced.
Click to expand...
A big reason why the left loves peer reviews is because there is virtually no chance that everyone in a department or group is going to agree to be a sceptic when their funding is at risk, some may have the courage, but ALL? Of course not.

And I think your should start by reviewing the parts the IPCC left out and those whose views they distorted, view the video I posted to blackflag for what I'm talking about.
 
"A big reason why the left loves peer reviews is because there is virtually no chance that everyone in a department or group is going to agree to be a sceptic when their funding is at risk, some may have the courage, but ALL? Of course not."

Like I said - always good to have supportable facts & the truth, instead of baseless, paranoid assumptions...
 
It is a fact that government emplyed scientists lie cuz they need to keep their jobs dummys. This one time at band camp someone told me and I believed it.
 
Onceler said:
It's always good to see actual facts posted, instead of generalizing comments like "Very few scientists take oil money, even the one case I think I remember it amounted to a few thousand, which is peanuts over their lifetime."
Click to expand...
Well why don't we start with the fact that the ice core samples from the Antarctic show CO2 rising AFTER heat increases and not preceding them. Something Gore lied about in his fictional movie.

Do you dispute that fact?
 
TheDanold said:
Well why don't we start with the fact that the ice core samples from the Antarctic show CO2 rising AFTER heat increases and not preceding them. Something Gore lied about in his fictional movie.

Do you dispute that fact?
Click to expand...


Of the 6 authors from the study that I have seen showing that, 4 of them believe wholeheartedly in AGW. I haven't seen any further writings from the other 2.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone claim that there was one, sole reason for warming periods throughout history. In fact, NONE of the trends prior to the present could have possibly had man as a CAUSE. In the ice core study, they concluded that C02 acted as a significant accelerator to warming once it began. At least one of the authors also believes it could have been the trigger this time around.
 
Blackflag said:
It is a fact that government emplyed scientists lie cuz they need to keep their jobs dummys. This one time at band camp someone told me and I believed it.
Click to expand...
They don't need to lie at all, they just need to not voice dissent.

Let me ask you something flag as the only other objective person on this thread, suppose hypothetically that you found out that global warming was not caused as much or at by humans, would you speak up if the reward for doing so was:
- possible loss of funding
- peers angry at you for possible loss of funding
- boss angry at you for his department losing funding
- if job losses do come (for whatever reason), gee I wonder who to get rid of
- difficulty finding another job
- less chance of funding increases or raises
- politicians angry at you (some known to threaten decertification)
- enviromentalist activists angry at you (some known to make death threats)
- you likely have a home, kids, bills to think of both in terms of supporting them and threats against them/you

And what do you gain for all that? A feeling of the truth. You're not naive, most people would just not do that or say anything or just agree.
I've mentioned this before, that most sceptics are older, more experienced and most important have a lot less to lose with their kids grown and them financially secure and name recognition brings some more job security. I don't think that's coincidental.

Most of ther greatest scientists in history were individual great thinkers, Gallileo, Newton, they were not some bureaucratic people who signed off on peer reviews and whose funding depended on a lot of enlightened individuals or themselves.
 
TheDanold said:
Well why don't we start with the fact that the ice core samples from the Antarctic show CO2 rising AFTER heat increases and not preceding them. Something Gore lied about in his fictional movie.

Do you dispute that fact?
Click to expand...

It is cool as cool hand luke, in California where I live? I have emailed the Bore and asked him what he makes of that, butt, of course, have received no answer? Rush Limbaugh, who is an email pal of mine, and who I have emailed about this board, which he said he might read, is trying to get everybody who is having a cool weather day, email the Bore and ask him to comment, so if you have time, do it for Rush?
 
TheDanold said:
A big reason why the left loves peer reviews is because there is virtually no chance that everyone in a department or group is going to agree to be a sceptic when their funding is at risk, some may have the courage, but ALL? Of course not.

snip
Click to expand...


Dano declares that the way science has been done for the last 400 years (i.e., original research - peer review - publication), to be a fraud.
 
TheDanold said:
I've seen lefties smash McDonalds, the unabomber and fight with police, but let's leave them all out and stick to apples to apples comparisons with those actions pertaining to dealing with the other side on climate change.
Click to expand...
That is because you were in McDonalds Dano...DUHHH
 
Cypress said:
Dano declares that the way science has been done for the last 400 years (i.e., original research - peer review - publication), to be a fraud.
Click to expand...

That's what they do; all they can try for is to make "peer review" sound dirty & unreliable, and undermine the scientific community as a whole.

If we had to go back to the days of treating people with leaches & burning those who didn't think the earth was the center of the Universe at the stake, they probably wouldn't bat an eyelash, as long as it meant that we wouldn't have to fund alternative energy research and reduce our C02 emissions...
 
TheDanold said:
A big reason why the left loves peer reviews is because there is virtually no chance that everyone in a department or group is going to agree to be a sceptic when their funding is at risk, some may have the courage, but ALL? Of course not.
Click to expand...

:lolup:
LOL! You really don't understand anything about science, or the scientific method, at all, do you? Didn't your high school, at least, require basic science courses? Your posts show that you know nothing about the peer review process, either!
 
TheDanold said:
They don't need to lie at all, they just need to not voice dissent.

Let me ask you something flag as the only other objective person on this thread, suppose hypothetically that you found out that global warming was caused as much or at by humans, would you speak up if the reward for doing so was:
- possible loss of funding
- peers angry at you for possible loss of funding
- boss angry at you for his department losing funding
- if job losses do come (for whatever reason), gee I wonder who to get rid of
- difficulty finding another job
- less chance of funding increases or raises
- politicians angry at you (some known to threaten decertification)
- enviromentalist activists angry at you (some known to make death threats)
- you likely have a home, kids, bills to think of both in terms of supporting them and threats against them/you

And what do you gain for all that? A feeling of the truth. You're not naive, most people would just not do that or say anything or just agree.
I've mentioned this before, that most sceptics are older, more experienced and most important have a lot less to lose with their kids grown and them financially secure and name recognition brings some more job security. I don't think that's coincidental.

Most of ther greatest scientists in history were individual great thinkers, Gallileo, Newton, they were not some bureaucratic people who signed off on peer reviews and whose funding depended on a lot of enlightened individuals or themselves.
Click to expand...


And the govt has been controlled by which party for virtually all of the past 7 plus years. So which party would threaten to cut off funding dano ?
thanks for helping to make my point.



ps I edited on word out of your quote for presenting the counter view.
I do not edit quotes without notification. unlike a person I know.
 
Umm Dano from what I can tell Thorn is probably the closest thing to a scientist on here is she is not truely one.

So go ahead and show you ass if you want, but you were warned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top