W
WanderAimlessly
Guest
More junk science :hypno:
I can see the headlines now: Bush causes Tsunami
- Status
C
chewchoo
Guest
it never ceases to amaze me how these “scientists” can reference 14000 year old weather activities and then tie them to global warming/climate change/ whatever the current phraseology is today. miami will disappear in 300 years
london will be swallowed by the thames that’s what happens when you build cities in flood plains :doh2: and what’s to say that civilization will not have imploded on its own within 300 years?
aren’t speculators wonderful
london will be swallowed by the thames that’s what happens when you build cities in flood plains :doh2: and what’s to say that civilization will not have imploded on its own within 300 years?aren’t speculators wonderful
D
dmelosi
Guest
So you know where I stand, I have always voted the pro life (anti abortion) ticket.
Republicans as a generally think that global warming is greatly exaggerated and Democrats generally think that global warming is a huge problem.
This is one issue that although I do lean towards believing the party that stands by the most innocent, BUT what motive do the scientists have to gain for making up the gloom and doom of global warming?
I am just not sure what to believe on this one.
Republicans as a generally think that global warming is greatly exaggerated and Democrats generally think that global warming is a huge problem.
This is one issue that although I do lean towards believing the party that stands by the most innocent, BUT what motive do the scientists have to gain for making up the gloom and doom of global warming?
I am just not sure what to believe on this one.
W
WanderAimlessly
Guest
It is a control issue.
I see “global warming” caused my man as a plank of the left to gain control of people’s lives. They do not believe than “common” people who are not in lockstep with them are capable of rational thinking and this have the right to independant thought and living.
S
steveandersen
Guest
More junk science reporting rather ( I never really liked the Guardian)
While geology can affect the climate (short term through volcanoes and more importantly in the longer term via the placement of seas and continents)
AFAIK there is no evidence or mechanism that the reverse is true nor is there anything in the article cited that explicitly makes the connection.
Coincidence is not correlation.
The seasonal volcanic activity in one Alaska volcano does not a pattern make and should be easier to explain by tidal forces rather than sea level changes.
A really poorly written article. A more suspicious man might suggest that it was planted just to be held up as a source of derision of real science.
Bottom line don’t trust non-technical sources for technical information.
With the press increasingly in the hands of Murdock and other conservative forces that is doubtful.I can see the headlines now: Bush causes Tsunami
“Bush fails to respond to tsunami…again” might be more likely
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
Research funding. the whole issue arose when Al Gore was in the Senate and in charge of appropriating funds. If you support global warming you get a grant; otherwise you go hungry.
S
steveandersen
Guest
any numbers to back that up?Research funding. the whole issue arose when Al Gore was in the Senate and in charge of appropriating funds. If you support global warming you get a grant; otherwise you go hungry.
E
estesbob
Guest
Skeptics about global warming are often painted as hirelings of the oil and automotive industries. Such claims irritate me. I have never earned a nickel as a consequence of my skepticism. Indeed, I have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars by it. First, you have to understand how a large research university operates. The professors are expected to obtain research grants, and in the atmospheric sciences these grants come mostly from government agencies.
In the atmospheric sciences it is difficult to get grants unless you can somehow tie your work to global warming, that is to say, to scare science. Because of my reputation, I immodestly believe that I could have jumped onto the global warming bandwagon. But I refused to do so because I would have found this repugnant.
usatoday.com/tech/columnist/aprilholladay/2006-08-07-global-warming-truth_x.htm?csp=34
S
steveandersen
Guest
One anecdotal news story.
So that would be a “no” on actual statistics or funding numbers?
Of course Dr. Bohren’s most telling quote
Stated simply (and probably unfairly), * conservatives do not believe that global warming exists (because they don’t want it to exist) whereas liberals believe in global warming (because they want it to exist).
Fortunately for me I’m a moderate/centrists and I know that the climate is not a matter of belief.
*
So that would be a “no” on actual statistics or funding numbers?
Of course Dr. Bohren’s most telling quote
Stated simply (and probably unfairly), * conservatives do not believe that global warming exists (because they don’t want it to exist) whereas liberals believe in global warming (because they want it to exist).
Fortunately for me I’m a moderate/centrists and I know that the climate is not a matter of belief.
*
E
estesbob
Guest
One anecdotal news story.
So that would be a “no” on actual statistics or funding numbers?
Of course Dr. Bohren’s most telling quote
Stated simply (and probably unfairly), * conservatives do not believe that global warming exists (because they don’t want it to exist) whereas liberals believe in global warming (because they want it to exist).*
Fortunately for me I’m a moderate/centrists and I know that the climate is not a matter of belief.
He is a person that is very familar with the grant sytem. i would take his opinion over yours. I think the statement you highlighted is right on.
S
steveandersen
Guest
Well I would agree that there is grant money to be gotten looking at climate change.
Nothing wrong with that
But the leap from there to the supposition that it will skew the findings is another matter.
- Status