Greatest Deception in the History of Science
- Thread starter Maverick74
- Start date
I don't know what your definition of "being wrong" is. Your partial list of 17k people have few if any scientists. I'm sure you can come up with far more people in the US who are opposed to climate science. If that is your standard of "proof," then it's not going to convince anyone.
Compromising on what? You're very confused. Compromise can be made in business or in politics, but never in science. There is only one true answer to the question of global warming. But there can be many ways to deal with it. To compromise on the former is sheer lunacy. I'm certainly willing to compromise on the latter (which I have already demonstrated amply on this board).
Oh come on man! "A few" of them are scientists? Are you for real?
And I love that line....
Compromise can be made in business or in politics, but never in science.
Well, well, then why do we always hear about a "concensus" on global warming. How do you have a "concensus" with FACTS??
Face it man, I OWN YOU!!!!!
Quote from Arnie:
Oh come on man! "A few" of them are scientists? Are you for real?
And I love that line....
Compromise can be made in business or in politics, but never in science.
Well, well, then why do we always hear about a "concensus" on global warming. How do you have a "concensus" with FACTS??
Face it man, I OWN YOU!!!!!
Scientific consensus is not reached by compromise. Gravity pulls everything down, whether you agree with it or not. Poison kills, regardless what your opinion is. There are always nut cases who claim that the second law of thermodynamics is false, or that perpetual machine can be made. Those disagreements between real scientists and the fringe do not affect the scientific consensus on the laws of thermodynamics.
You wingnuts are touting a few fringe nut cases as evidence of disagreement. It is irrelevant to the scientific consensus. The only consequence is political. We have in Bush administration a group of nuts who don't believe science, and are substituting religious/political beliefs for science. This may work for awhile. It certainly worked for decades in the former Soviet Union, and in Mao's China. Only in this case, the entire human race will suffer the consquences.
From wiki:
"Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of science at a particular time. Scientific consensus is not, by itself, a scientific argument, and is not part of the scientific method; however, the content of the consensus may itself be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method."
No compromise here.
Please show me wear anyone in the administration is using religous beliefs vis a vis global warming. You're the fanatic! And AlGore is your God.
PS. The Bush administration has spent over 5 billion dollars on climate research. More than all 8 years for Clinton.
Keep it up, you're batting "0".
Quote from Arnie:
Please show me wear anyone in the administration is using religous beliefs vis a vis global warming. You're the fanatic! And AlGore is your God.
PS. The Bush administration has spent over 5 billion dollars on climate research. More than all 8 years for Clinton.
Keep it up, you're batting "0".
Where did you get this propoganda? Bush has cut climate research budget (as well as budget for EPA, DOI, and other environmental related programs) year after year. For FY06 budget,
* Total designated climate change expenditures will drop $197 million from FY05. This represents a decline in the Climate Change Science Program (-$26m), the Climate Change Technology Program (-$124m), and International Assistance on climate change (-$48m). Only "energy tax incentives" (or subsidies) increase in the proposed FY06 budget (+$441m).
* Within the CCSP, President Bush's Climate Change Research Initiative faces a proposed $36 million cut in FY06, while the Global Change Research Program is set to receive an increase of $11 million. (Note: the GCRP budget was cut by $100 million in FY05.)
* Within the CCTP, energy conservation faces a $21 million cut, and renewables a $27 million cut. Only nuclear, fossil fuel, and hydrogen programs see increased spending in FY06.
True, Bush has increased government spending tremendously during his 6 years in office. But none of that increase has been in climate research or energy conservation.
Fair enough Z but there's probably not a quid pro quo involved.
In other words RJR doesn't "pay off" scientists. Rather RJR finds scientists whose research supports their corporate position. Arguably they give voice to scientists who state contrarian arguments.
Unless you can link payment to deceit then you're argument is indeed strawman....
In other words RJR doesn't "pay off" scientists. Rather RJR finds scientists whose research supports their corporate position. Arguably they give voice to scientists who state contrarian arguments.
Unless you can link payment to deceit then you're argument is indeed strawman....
C'mon man. You're smart enough to know that the left's talk about human created climate change is on par with the neocon's "Muslim in every closet" political ideology.
Today's political debate is mindless codewords and catch phrases like those in a cheap sales presentation. Education, guns, Iron Curtain, terrorists, Choice, Warming, pay your "fair" share, blah, blah, blah........
Today's political debate is mindless codewords and catch phrases like those in a cheap sales presentation. Education, guns, Iron Curtain, terrorists, Choice, Warming, pay your "fair" share, blah, blah, blah........
So you are one who thinks that all scientists who support GW are merely leftists promoting a political agenda?
Not likely...
I don't see how it is possible right now to have a definite position either way, I find myself more in the middle, as I am not a scientist, how can I really challenge either side and their theory?
My belief systems is however that what goes around eventually comes around, and if we are greedy and ignore the earth, then the earth will eventually come around to let us know that is not a natural way of living...
Not likely...
I don't see how it is possible right now to have a definite position either way, I find myself more in the middle, as I am not a scientist, how can I really challenge either side and their theory?
My belief systems is however that what goes around eventually comes around, and if we are greedy and ignore the earth, then the earth will eventually come around to let us know that is not a natural way of living...
