Climate science arrogance

back to CAGW being a religious belief I see. The cult of CAGW is a strong one indeed, but when political power and billions to green corporations is at stake I guess the politicians and their shills can afford to buy all the propaganda they need.

 

Your disreputable rambling is noted, per 'religious belief,' when you are quite blind.

Here is Lesley Stahl's first episode, of her new show, which you could watch, to learn:

http://yearsoflivingdangerously.com/correspondent/lesley-stahl/

In this 1st episode, Professor Richard Mueller explains warming, to a North Carolina preacher.

So much for YOUR religion, eh? What do you call it, red-state ramble-rapture?

 

For one, without government involvement, many of these scientists might see a few minor grants a year but since CAGW alarmism has become political they have seen 2.5+ billion poured into their research. It is unfathomable that they would be willing to give that up by not toeing the party line. Those researchers that have immunity from being ostracized are often researchers with tenure at large universities.

 

So you would trust the findings of a tenured professor who gets less than 15% of his funding from government sources?

 

Would you?

 

I see you're purposefully choosing to ignore the fact that they were saying the same thing under the last conservative administration (ie: when it wasn't "the party line")...

 

Your comment makes no sense whatsoever.

 

Your inability to comprehend my very simple comment has no bearing on its validity.

 

First of all, you have no idea what I ever said, second, who is 'they', third, it still makes no sense.

 

"They" are climate scientists you mention is Post #553 that were saying the same thing when Republicans were holding the purse strings. A search of Google Scholar shows that scientific support for AGW doesn't correlate with political control.

 

Still doesn't mean you know what I thought at that time.

 

So, what's your point? Government is government and I don't expect the idiots in power to be much different from one administration to the next.

 

If you believe all administrations have an identical "party line", then you are truly delusional.

 

LOL, you can't even read what I wrote. Both parties act like idiots.

 

You are very ignorant of the way things work in our society if you think that our elected officials control who gets academic funding. The elected official earmark $X blllion for funding. Its liberal bureaucrats who decide who gets it.

 

And for the grand conspiracy based on "The scientists are only saying it is warming to get more funding" that principle has to apply to 187 countries world wide

Sort of breaks down at that point don't you think???/

 

Which has nothing to do with your previous assertion that scientists are simply sticking to the government's party line.

Perhaps you need to review what you wrote...

 

Scientists have two problems and they are both very human. First, they were lucky to get 3 grants a year total before CAGW alarmism but now the government has pumped in 2.5+ billion. Very tempting for those that want to do research. If they want to do research, they better toe the party line or they will not get grants. Right now, anyone coming out of college will follow the CAGW party line if they want to get anywhere. Second, some of them, not all, have a lot invested in one hypothesis and it is only human to protect their position in the scheme of things. Scientists are not superhuman but are prone to all human responses as anyone else.

 

None of which explains why the scientific consensus hasn't changed in the last several administrations, including amongst scientists who operate solely outside the US.

 

Consensus is not science and if you mean John Cooks poor survey which was never accurate or true, you cannot say anything like that for sure.

 

When did I say that consensus is science or mention John Cook?

 

Yes you did. The 'consensus' came from John Cook's, the cartoonist, blog. His communication project is the center of 'consensus' that was widely embraced and advertised by CAGW advocates.

 

Please quote the post where I mentioned Cook.
When you need to misrepresent my position in order to come close to making a point, your position is obviously fundamentally flawed.

 

You mentioned 'consensus'. That 'consensus' meme came started on John Cook's blog.

 

The fact that scientists have been saying the same thing (ie: had a consensus) for a period of time greater than the current administration is not a meme, and the fact that Cook said something similar does not mean my post had anything to do with him.

Fail.