Climate Activist Greta

I’m not doing your work for you, free loader.

 

Not and can't are not synonyms

 

Deleted

 

The IPCC is funded by the UN. Who pays the most for the UN?

Funding to the UNFCC and IPCC was upped to 13 million a year under Obama.

 

A majority of 56 "scientists" on the IPCC have "settled" the science

 

Actually fewer than that and some are not scientists like the now disgraced previous head railroad engineer. The IPCC output is basically decided by a small non-transparent group guided by governments.

 

You want free stuff.

 

I didn’t know researching past President Obama was more important to you then researching AGW. Now you’re wrong about everything.

 

What about the scientists at all the major corporations and institutions dependent upon climate science. Are they also miss guided ? Boeing is misguided ? The US military is miss guided. Keep repeating Republican talking points.

 

You mean the scads of scientific organizations that do no climate science?

 

The largest richest country on the planet is pretty much the only one that isn't convinced. When you talk about billions spent most of that is things like satellites, and nuclear power plants. Things that are only tangentially related. When you talk about millions in grants, that isn't money that is going into scientist's pockets. There isn't anybody really getting rich from science. There aren't any billionaire scientists. Conversely, there are millions who have hundreds of billions of dollars in the oil industry alone. Never mind the automobile industry, and aviation industry, and plastics and concrete, and many others who have a vested interest and invest heavily in lobbying activities. There are boatloads of oil billionaires and the vast majority of think tanks and scientists who deny the consensus on climate change are pretty directly linked to them. If we are looking at what money is talking with the most muscle, it's pretty much a boxing match between Gretta Thunberg, and the top 10 heavyweight champions of the last ten years in their prime. If money were the thing that determined the scientific position, almost nobody would have ever heard of climate change.

Also, the biggest and most famous scientists are those who upended the table. Disproving long held beliefs is massively more prestigious than just plugging along and confirming things we already know, nobody will ever make a name for themselves that way. On the other hand, if you try to get a grant to show the earth is flat, you aren't going to have much luck. If you publish a paper showing the earth is flat that only consists of some cherry picked flat earther talking points, you certainly will have a very damaged reputation as a scientist.

 

The now infamous narrative that 'big oil' outspends the government on science is laughable at best. Lots of scientists accused of working for big oil simply because their science does not toe the dogma are still waiting for their checks.

As for money, if you want a grant to study climate science, you better follow the dogma or you will not get funding.

 

Thanks. Now I'm blushing.

 

Well, it depends on what you mean by outspending on science. And it isn't big government vs big oil. The government is heavily oil friendly. There isn't really a particular entity competing against the oil industry. Most likely, the scientists that don't 'toe the line' are just doing bad science. I admit that it is probably hard to get a grant to disprove man-made climate change. For one, it's also probably hard to get a grant to find bigfoot, and for another, the project shouldn't start with a slant one way or another, it should just be to find out. But, if you have a particular narrative you are trying to push and that is exposed during peer review or later through the way you screwed up the science, then sure you are going to have a harder time getting further funding.

 

It's ok if you can't. You're amongst friends

 

Drag a reference to the table and let us all see what "miss guided" looks like...

 

He'll give you a link, or spell google for you.

 

Likely... There isn't much there for sure.

 

Take that up with Hoosier8.

 

I would hope not. Golf friends excepted. they aren’t that naive, or lazy.

 

So it’s true. You want someone else to do the work ?

 

Your work.
Make claim, back it up.
But that's OK if you don't. Not everyone wants to be taken seriously

 

Oh, they actually back their claims and demonstrate a level of understanding ?

 

Science is never settled. What a dumb thing to say.

 

Name one that does not. That shows everyone how little you know about science and climate change. Nearly every OTHER branch of science in these organizations other then just climate science has lent its expertise in supporting AGW. Too bad you don’t bother to do research to find out how. You wouldn’t have sounded so uninformed, again.