Someone is funding the work of the "sky is falling" scientist as well.
I read more articles that alleged that scientist that didn't the chant
the "global warming is all our fault" mantra lost funding for their
You are willing to believe that corporations influence research by who
they fund. Why don't you believe the same about other funding sources?
Suppose I was a professor and wanted to get funding for my climate
study and I said, "I don't believe man is causing Global Warming and I
want to prove it." Who is going to fund me? NOAA? The Republicans? The
only likely funding sources are oil, gas, and coal industry groups.
In between oil companies and Greenpeace, there is a wide spectrum of funding
sources, many of which will not lean on researchers to bias their work in a
particular way. But, for purposes of this newsgroup discussion, these
foundations and other organizations are assumed to not exist. Imagine what
could happen if someone mentioned the name of a foundation, and one of the
cave people here (Scott, for instance) recalled hearing that the foundation
donated money to NPR. Oh my.
: > That the vast majority of scientists believe that man is playing a
: > significant role in global warming.
Oh please.... And man lived with dinosaurs on a 6000 year old Earth. I know
it's true because there is a museum in KY that says
So the opinion of the vast majority of scientist has always been
Two more random thoughts:
- The environment has never been stable. There have been periods that
were hotter than now, and periods that were cooler. Why is this change
so different that we are sure it is our fault?
- Suppose everything the global warming fans says is true - is the end
result good or bad?
How can you "deny" something that is pure conjecture to begin with?
There is plenty of open-minded discussion -- ignored by the activists.
It's easy to find. Google, for example, these names:
Or you can just follow the link below...
Not even close. Outside of the mainstream media and the activists, man's
role in global warming is very much in question, with most scientists
saying there's precious little evidence that man has any effect at all
on global temperatures.
Search that site for a lengthy series called "The Deniers".
Oh, and that IPCC summary? Even it says there's no real evidence man has
anything to do with it, once you get past the scary sea-level-rise
bumpf. Go read it -- the parts BEFORE the conclusion --, you'll see.
Of course. I regularly buy gas to put in my car so it will get me to
work. Does that count?
An "organization" is a political entity without existence outside of the
individuals that make them up.
It is silly to suggest that ideas are valid only when promoted by
individuals in charge of an organization.
It is equally silly to suggest that ideas are unsound which are not
associated with an organization.
Established science these days would not exist at all had it not been
for those determined individuals who refused to toe the orthodox party
Everything from modern astronomy to microbial diseases originated with
renegade individuals who discovered flaws in the prevailing orthodoxy,
and who refused to knuckle under to the orthodoxy, sometimes even under
threat of death. All those radical theories are now themselves the
I don't believe you even looked up any of those articles. There are over
two dozen of them.
I doubt that 'Mother Nature' has anything to do with it in reality. Persuing
some mildly cranky agenda based on a mixture of scientific half-truths and envy
and a desire to impose an alternative lifestyle on the broader population seems
to be more like it.
I think you ignored part of what Fred said because it's not exciting.
The same changes that will reduce pollution (a good idea that nobody
disagrees with) may come with a bonus, ***IF*** it turns out that our
burning of fossil fuels contributes to global warming.
Work to fix a problem that everyone agrees is a problem, and maybe you get a
bonus in terms of minimizing another problem. Of course, this sentence is
only true for people who acknowledge that some places have nasty air quality
Bad analogy. All sentient beings agree that smog is bad, and the various
ways of reducing it have been 100% accepted for many years.
Here's another analogy: Your doctor says if you don't lose weight, you've
got a good chance of having a fatal heart attack within the coming year.
Bonus: It might also help with your knee problems.
Wanna put your doctor in jail, too?
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.