Then you could say that about all science and research and say it's all fake and should be stopped. This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of. Scientists are very careful about their conclusions and there is peer review of data. When someone lies about data which happens from time to time and they are caught they are completely ostracized by the community. There are many many sources of data that are cross-checked. One set of data is rarely enough to build a consensus. In science when you have 97% of climate scientist say they are convinced that climate change is man-made, and your response is to say it's a conspiracy - I mean, I just feel sad for you. You are anti-science
I wonder what bobby would say to this line of reasoning: "Let's stop believing evolution is a credible theory because biologists are being disingenuous to the public in order to receive more funding." Actualy scratch that. Bobby probably believes evolution is as credible as 10,000 year old creationism.
You mean to say "dense", not "dunce", so wear this cap while reading the rest What I'm saying is that if the notion of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change were to be disproved and the models showed a more manageable scenario, climate science funding would dry up and the money would be diverted to other scientific fields and those climate scientists would go back to struggling to find funding for their research just like they did before they started suggesting that global warming was going to kill the planet and everyone on it. Obviously there is more to climate science than catastrophic anthropogenic climate change, but that's what gets them their funding.
I can't believe I'm actually acknowledging your spelling correction but I did notice the error and edited it before you made a reply. This assertion... Do you have any actual empirical evidence that backs this assertion? I can as I have examined it before show you with hard empirical evidence that almost all the prominent climate change deniers are funded by energy companies. Can you do the same with your assertion? I doubt it. I doubt you attempted any actual legitimate research on the manner of climate science funding and are purely basing your assertions on conjecture. But you do seem to be a "dunce" in the manner of rational and objective thought.
Right. There is not a single large scale study that substantiates this position, and that includes studies funded by conservative based groups. Conservatives are anti-science. It wasn't always true, but hS become the norm the last 30-40 years.
No, you really couldn't say that about all science, not all fields have gone from relative irrelevance to the top in just a few decades based solely on one suggestion the way climate science has. If you look at funding for climate science and climate change technology it looks a lot like Al Gore's "hockey stick" graph..... I'm not anti-science, but I'm not going to ignore what is a huge conflict of interest. When one field can go from annual funding around 200 million to over 10 billion in just a few decades based solely on the successful marketing of one theory, it is suspicious. Then again, it's possible that the scientists that work for the government are altruistic while the scientists that work for oil companies or whatever are the only scientists that aren't. It's possible.
It wasn't a spelling correction, it was a grammar correction. You used an actual word, spelled correctly, you just didn't use the right word. Are you really asking if you can find "hard empirical evidence" about federal budgets? Heh, wow.
Successful marketing of one theory? The funding has increased because climate change is a threat to human civilization! Do you not get that? If there was an asteroid on a dead course to earth and science funding to deflect increased to 100 billion, you'd argue that maybe it's not real and it's made up and no one wants to lose their funding.
The way capitalism works, it would be in the interests of oil companies' shareholders to promote theories where selling and burning oil are not a cause of global warming up to the point that their ruse isn't exposed and reviled by their consumers. That's the more probable funding scenario. Bobby's way is duncer. g
Then again, it's possible that the scientists that work for the government are altruistic while the scientists that work for tobacco companies or whatever are the only scientists that aren't. It's possible.
So conservatives: Believe in evolution Understand what has driven climate for the past 800,000 years Vaccinate their children Hold engineering and science degrees Are religious, much like the developer of the Big Bang Theory Object to abortion and embryonic stem cell research on moral basis, not scientific misunderstanding Liberals however: Found something new about climate change that all those scientists missed over the past 100 years of research Don't vaccinate their children Think we should tear down damns, oil wells, nuclear power plants because the apocalypse And liberals do this with a fervent, fanatic zealotry similar and in common with the clerigy of the Spanish Inquisition. I ask you, who is anti-science?
Whoever is voting in Republicans with their ****ty platforms and lobotomized candidates are pretty much to blame. Lipstick on a pig != Conservative /spin
No I'm asking you provide evidence to the notion that majority of climate science funding is because of the fear of climate change. I don't see you doing it. So I'll assume safely your assertions are based on pure conjecture. By all means ask me to find hard evidence on who is funding the most prominent climate change deniers. I'll provide. You made an assertion. The onus is on you to provide evidence. And I'm sorry that I mistakenly used the wrong context of the word "dunce". I should have used "dense". I obviously discovered this before you even sent the reply as you can see in my ordinal post. But I believe either word is an appropriate description of your mentality of your unsubstantiated claims.
I posted this in a few times before and am post it again just because it succinctly shows how ludicrous is the argument that most climate scientists are arguing for anthropogenic global warming for the money. [rquoter]But the Limbaughs and Hannitys of the world have done a great job convincing Americans that climatologists have entered into this massive, incomprehensible conspiracy to fool the world that there’s a problem. The reason, they say, is that climatologists are doing it for the money, so they can continue to live in their climatologist mansions and drive their climatologist Ferraris. (For the 26 percent who might not get it, that was sarcasm.) Meanwhile, the people who selflessly fight for Americans—the billionaire industrialists and oil-industry magnates—speak only truth because, you know, they have no financial reason to suggest climate change is a fraud. After all, they have dedicated themselves to a modest life so they can advance the truth, residing in their tumble-down, billionaire shacks and driving their billionaire 1994 Chevys. (Once again—sarcasm.)[/rquoter] The amount of money that would come to a climate scientists who actually could put forward a cogent and well supported arguing definitively disproving man made factors in climate change would be huge simply because the amount of money in the fossil fuel is vast compared to the amount of money that goes to the efforts to combat climate change. It's not surprising that those who have a self-serving interests in maintaining the fossil fuel based status quo would accuse those who threaten that as self-serving but that doesn't make sense when you look at the difference in terms of the money.
The whole "follow the money" argument by climate deniers is pretty lame considering climate professors and researchers don't make that much unless they cash out and suck the corporate teet. Oh right, they can win overnight success on the book tours and talk circuit. Right...name your top 5 favorite climate scientists and the date Climate Con comes to your city. OTOH, some O&G corporations listed on the stock exchange don't know wtf-all to do their mountains of annual profit and have to give it back in an age where dividends are uncommon. They don't have to spend a billion to seed doubt or induce paralysis on public opinion. More like tens of millions, which is a single week's profit for one company rather than the entire industry. Who has more money doesn't seem to equate to this since those companies get a bye if they attack through advertising and "image consulting" as that's what they're used for, whereas scientists can be attacked through accusations of bias and objectivity. It's quite sad to witness how easily the consuming masses can be lead through the nose with the correct framing of issues without understanding the underlying principles at stake.
If I'm a climate scientist, which avenue would provide more funding for my work? A. government funding B. funding from private energy companies. If I was to be a disingenuous climate scientist who is in it for the profits I personally would love some of that private funding pie by major energy corporations. Of course, I'm just using basic common sense here, something Bobby seems to severely lack at least in this regard.
The "left" definitely has more claim to be rightfully on a "high horse" than the "right" on science. Empirically what accounts for a greater percentage of the population in the United States? A. Conservatives who believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old B. Liberals who don't vaccinate their children?(something spooked libertarian right wingers do also or shall I remind you of Michelle Bachmann again?).
