Obviously, there is not governmental contract such as that. Grants get let for rather focused purposes, and YOU are claiming that there is some sort of conspiracy that would cause the thousands of such grant winners ALL OVER THE WORLD to somehow coordinate their results. And, that's one easy way to notice that your contention is preposterous.
lol...name the non govt entities by dollar value that pay more than the govt for these studies as well as their political leanings.
so your claim is there are no govt contracts for this correct? also Ive stated already there is no conspiracy, its just plain ole self preservation. You know this thats why you dodged my question that you will pretend you dont remember. too funny.
You're going to have to try to stick to what I actually type. And, you're still ignoring the breadth of the entities taking part in your conspiracy theory.
Must be man made global warming effects. Yup! CBS News just reported it has been a near record hot year. If YOU don't believe in Man Made Global Warming, You are a denier! Moi r > g Stop Creeping ism Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic, regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.
Obviously, no, as there are no such people. Other than yourself, apparently, since you seem to be a self-proclaimed expert at faking things for money. You must have gained that knowledge by personal experience. Don't project your own lifestyle of graft and corruption on to the honest people. We get it. You'll gladly rig data for a buck, so you justify it by declaring everyone else has to be just as corrupt as yourself. But that's not how it works. Just try to understand that we are not like you. Your side will lie for money and personal gain, while ours is scrupulously honest.
And it was ended by rising CO2 levels. It's impossible to explain paleoclimate without accounting for the effects of CO2. Yet deniers claim CO2 has no effect on climate. Curious, that.
Why are you asking? Oh, you can't support your conspiracy theory even the tiniest bit, and you want to deflect from that. Never mind, carry on.
because you questioned my integrity at what I do. So either post it... or dont and be a beta. Its your choice to hide a if you want. I actually do this for a living. Ive seen how it works. If you dont like it or think Im lying....take solace in the fact that you werent even man enough to tell me what qualifications you have in the business to challenge my integrity.
Just as you questioned mine, and that of every scientist. You did it first, and you're now blubbering about having your tactic tossed back in your conspiracy cultist face. A saying about heat and kitchens comes to mind. If you're going to dish it out, don't start crying when you get it back. The lesson we learn there is that, no matter how often we ask, you're going to steadfastly refuse to back up your kook conspiracy claims. Instead, you're going to stamp your widdle foot and just demand that everyone accept them. If you ever manage to find your 'nads, let us know by posting your evidence. I suggest using high magnification. If you are unsuccessful in your quest-for-the-nads, just keep whining about how awful we are for demanding stupid liberal things like facts and evidence.
That ain't necessarily so. I just heard Freeman Dyson say, that looking at ice core samples it is impossible to say if rising temps preceded rising co2 or vice versa. Truth is, the knowledge in regards to climate change is far too limited to be exclaiming certainty about much of anything. Weather models have come a long way but still are inaccurate if you go over 5 days. Climate models are fine for studying the factors that you input into it, but it is far too simplistic to use a a predictive tool. Proven by its failures in the short term. And they are trying to predict long term while not being able to get the short term right? I agree with Dyson. Yes, man has contributed, but there is no way in hell at this point to determine how much. He also says we are assuming, yes assuming, that a warmer planet is a bad thing, when he thinks it will be a good thing. More positives than negatives. The only thing that will tell, is time. For we do not know enough to predict it accurately. So all of the doom and gloom hysterical are full of sh*t. And they are beginning to stink like it. The hoax will prove to be not a hoax but a fraud.
your statements have weight if you are in the business. If not, you are in no position to challenge those of us who are. As far as your interest in my nads, sorry but Im not interested in your male curiosity of my genitals.
Ice cores have nothing to do with knowing that rising CO2 levels ended snowball earth. Ice cores only go back a million years or so, while snowball earth was over 5000 million years ago. Different proxies show the CO2 levels at that time. Dyson? He stinks at the science in this field. He's an old guy who doesn't understand those young whippersnappers, and who doesn't want to understand. I am much better at the science in the climate field than he is. Not a brag, a statement of fact. It's not I'm that brilliant, it's that Dyson is that bad. He knows what he knows, and he's not interested in knowing more. As far as modern ice ages ago, it's been pretty well established that yes, CO2 is the driving factor. Orbital factors give the initial kick to start the deglaciation, but they orbital factors don't have the power to finish the job. The rising CO2 levels that follow the initial little warming are the things that ends the ice age. it's not possible to explain how ice ages end without including the effects of CO2. I agree there. All the crap pseudoscience that your cult pshes has been revealed to be openly fraudulent. If you think you're not a pseudoscience devotee, here's how to prove it. Do some science. For example, put forth a theory that explains how snowball earth ended, without using the effects of CO2. I'll give you a hint that it's not "orbital factors", because in that era, the earth stayed quite frozen for hundreds of orbital cycles.
Being that you're a glorified technician, why are you claiming climate science expertise? If we go by your statements here, it's clear you know nothing about the science. While appeals to fake authority clearly work in your cult, they make intellectually honest people laugh. Yeah, yeah, we're so totally unfair, in that we require facts instead of empty boasting. I do understand why you're upset. Questioning someone's credibility is a totally unacceptable thing ... except when you questioned the credibility of every scientist in the world as the basis of your argument. Such a fine double standard.
Once again, there are numerous countries sponsoring science in this area. Universities and other institutions also sponsor science. The science is complex enough that scientists (who study limited pieces of the puzzle) could not possibly guess what results they should force - even if they were totally corrupt. You're still trying to pump a world wide, coordinated conspiracy. But, you have proposed NO method that could accomplish that. Beyond that, a substantial number of the scientists we applaud are those who in some arena changed science substantially. We laud Einstein as he trashed so much of physics. Etc. If some university somewhere in the world could show a better explanation of climate that trashed current world wide agreement on causes of warming, it would be hailed forever.
Well, you keep telling me there is a conspiracy - that science is being subverted by federal interests, using grant programs as the vehicle for subverting various agencies, which would have to include the governments of other countries, too. I keep pointing out that there is no method that could coordinate what science is "supposed to" find or to subvert all the nations involved. To me, those two positions seemed opposed.
The problem here is that the effect you identify doesn't produce the result you propose unless it is done the world over AND the desired results are known so the scientist can screw up their experiment in a way that supports what is wanted. So, yes, you didn't identify a conspiracy directly. But, your answer is totally dependant on there being a conspiracy. Without a world wide conspiracy, your concern is essentially powerless. And, as I pointed out, there is every reason to believe there are honest scientists and science organizations contributing to the analysis of climate change - such as universities.
Actually, I'd like you to explain how your ability to run a mass spectrometer gave you the special knowledge that all climate science is fraudulent. Please proceed. Oh, you should also explain the grant thing. Grant recipients are forbidden by law from pocketing any grant money, and it all has to be tracked to the penny, so just how are they getting rich off these grants?
wrong. No conspiracy. Its just people doing business and acting out of self preservation. There is even competition over contracts in which businesses will overstate their abilities in order to get the contract. Is a conspiracy when all restaurants put a sign in their window that says best burgers in town?
hahah google searched it eh? What kind of mass "spectrometer" ? lol also strawman...you challenged me as a scientist, I then asked you if you would like to discuss mass fragmentation, and you and only you associated that with climate science....but hey, Ill play...tell us what instruments you are using in your climate studies. Lets see if it falls on your list or not. Also were speaking of gas or liquid instrumentation?
