I look at it like the so called "fake" moon landing, how in the world could you get 100's or 1000's of engineers (or scientists) at NASA fooled or quiet? It's easy to throw a wrench in the works and create doubt, especially if you gain something (ex. I can drive my car as much as I want....) But I think when the overwhelming voice of the scientific community warns us about global warming ( I hate the "global climate change" moniker) we should do what we can to protect all the inhabitants of our earth.
"These scientists are thorough and smart people."
I agree. Some huge conspiracy theory doesn't ring true for me. Many scientist seem so passionate about science they wouldn't be capable of saying something they didn't find scientific evidence of, even towards their own gain.
I think conspiracy is perhaps the wrong phrase. It reminds us of those theories about 9/11, or the mood landings or UFOs or whatever.
I see the behaviour of the 'scientists' as being closer to a school of fish - when the leading fish changes course the bulk follow. In the 'science' the practitioners see where the funding is, and follow that.
__________________
[I]So long and thanks for all the fish.[/I]
Remember, that human caused global climate change was proposed and tested in 1896. I hope you can watch the videos -- they are in command of a staggering amount of information. One of the men testifying works for the Cato Institute and he is a doubter, and he is conveniently forgetting to include important factors, and therefore is not credible. He is one of the people that the scientists were so mad at in those emails -- so I hope you get to watch the videos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arragonis
The paper I linked to is brand new.
But, you and I are not scientists and we are not qualified to make judgments one way or the other. If the new paper you linked to has merit, then the scientific community will work with it, test it, etc. This is exactly how the process has worked up until now. They are hardly a school of fish -- quite the opposite.
In the congressional testimony which is very recent, they speak about the many, many considerations (all of them that have been proposed?) that they have studied and modeled and tested; and they have concluded that humans are causing the current warming. There is no other explanation.
Here's Secretary Chu speaking about this and related subjects:
I think conspiracy is perhaps the wrong phrase. It reminds us of those theories about 9/11, or the mood landings or UFOs or whatever.
I see the behaviour of the 'scientists' as being closer to a school of fish - when the leading fish changes course the bulk follow. In the 'science' the practitioners see where the funding is, and follow that.
Exactly. Just as fish are drawn to blood in the water, humans are drawn to money in their environment. If a subsidized 'scientist' wants to keep his high salaried or grant-endowed job, he has to regurgitate the amen chorus from the politically correct songbook - or he'll be forced to go swim with the sharks, looking for work elsewhere.
On Eaarth the sheeple must all follow the leader and go "BAA, BAA, BAA!"
Remember, that human caused global climate change was proposed and tested in 1896. I hope you can watch the videos -- they are in command of a staggering amount of information.
I love Neil's choice of words: "they are in command of..." Again, the words used are the couched in the language of politics and coercion. That's no coincidence. Considering the relentless stream of videos Neil keeps offering, he is either a paid propagandist or an unpaid zealot.
Quote:
One of the men testifying works for the Cato Institute and he is a doubter, and he is conveniently forgetting to include important factors, and therefore is not credible.
Yes! Anyone who understands politics knows that the Cato Institute is persona non grata and anathema to Leftists: Liberals/Socialists. In Neil's world "doubters" are "not credible" - entirely because they have doubts!!!
This is their concept of the "NEW" science: no doubting allowed. Newspeak. Welcome to "1984" - even if it is late in arrival, by 26 years or so.
Quote:
In the congressional testimony which is very recent, they speak about the many, many considerations (all of them that have been proposed?) that they have studied and modeled and tested; and they have concluded that humans are causing the current warming. There is no other explanation.
Yep. Gotta eradicate those pesky humans. Or at least take away their ability to use fuel and cause the "current warming". At the very least let's deport all humans to tropical jungles (oh, excuse my political incorrectness for calling them jungles, I need to say it in newspeak: "raain forests") where they can swelter in the heat and be reduced to primitive existence. then Eaarth will revert to being Nirvaanaa.
Quote:
Here's Secretary Chu speaking about this and related subjects
To hell with Secretary Chu. I'd just as soon listen to Chairman Maao. (Unfortunately he's pushing up daaisies. )
And on Eaarth the sheeple just say "BAA, BAA, BAA!"
The gentleman from the Cato Institute is not credible because he is a crappy scientist -- a pretender comes to mind. His work doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Watch the videos before you try to defend an obvious paid stooge.
To use Steven Chu's analogy, he is the one electrician who tells you the wiring in your house is okay, when the other 99 tell you it is a fire hazard. Is it worth the risk listening to him?
He is Don Blankenship, now-former CEO of Massey Energy, and is responsible for the 29 dead miners in the Upper Big Branch Mine in April. This mine alone had over 500 serious safety violations, and they fought every one of them. He even tried to blame that explosion on the regulators. He is responsible for "mountaintop removal" which is an environmental disaster. He bought and paid for judges, and lost a case in the Supreme Court on this. He has fought to against the acceptance of global climate change.
You decide: do you want to be on the same side of this critically important issue as Don Blankenship, or not?
The gentleman from the Cato Institute is not credible because he is a crappy scientist -- a pretender comes to mind. His work doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Watch the videos before you try to defend an obvious paid stooge.
Yep, to an absolute Leftist anybody from the Cato Institute is "crappy" and a "paid stooge". He's a doubter. We can't tolerate doubt. If we can't silence him we will campaign to smear him.
"Watch the videos, watch the videos." Neil's mission in being a propaganda pimp is to get you to watch the videos. I wonder how much he is getting paid?
Those who have major doubts about global climate change -- you can figure out if you want to be on the same side as this guy:
You decide: do you want to be on the same side of this critically important issue as Don Blankenship, or not?
Nice try, Neil, but it's pathetically obvious. The technique is called 'guilt by association'. Put up a photo of any villain and use the propaganda trick of saying "if you do not support US (or doubt our activist position), then you are on the same side as HIM.
And the sheeple, the new citizens of EAarth said: "BAA, BAA, BAA!"
Today
Other popular topics in this forum...
)
