Out of 13,950 only 23 article peer reviewed articles dispute Man Made Climate Change

Government grants don't exactly buy mansions. Your average scientists who works for a university is living a very moderate life.

I don't know how you think grants work, but that money is going to research.

 

I dont disagree...

Federal funding is basically their sole source of income, regardless of how much they make.

A PHD without a federal grant is a waiter, at Chili's...

 

What I don't understand is why deniers seem to think that all these thousands and thousands of scientists are lying about human caused global warming for grant money. Scientists working with federal grant money arent exacty living in beverly hills.

What do they think thet are doing? Using grant money to do fake research and come to false conclusions to get more grant money to do fake research? Do you understand how little sense this argument makes? To get a phd you are looking at a minimum of 2-3 years post bac, and that's rare. Do you think all these scientists are going though the mass amounts of work to get a phd just so they can do fake research? In what universe is that a logical conclusion?

 

A lot of them arent even Americans, their grants dont come from US Government.

Theyre from the UN, who has a vested interest in seeing Americans pay taxes to the UN.

Oh and the only global warming activist who is living the high life is Al Gore.

How green is Al Gore's $9 million Montecito oceanfront villa?

 

Correct

 

And where the funding can come from can be interesting as well. A friend of mines son has just completed a project, paid for by the US military (sorry I dont know which branch) The goal of the research was to develop better remote sensing capabilities in the arctic. Basically measure the thickness of ice over a far greater area to to a much higher precision than is currently possible. Now ten years from now a climate researcher accesses that data and does a statistical summary of what the information says. Peer reviews and has a published article on AGW. The researcher has no grant, because there is no cost other than his time.

So who ultimately paid for that?

Can anyone say honestly that researcher is part of some grand conspiracy to get funding for things based on results he must produce, of course not.

 

That didn't answer any of the questions I asked what so ever. Do you think that tens of thousands of scientists globally (and thousands in the US) are spending years of hard work to become PhDs and to preform fake research?

Al Gore is not a scientist. I have no idea what this little red herring has to do with anything I said.

 

interesting opinion; but no evidence, never mind proof.

On the E&E is a valid peer-review journal debate:
Nature, Journal of Atmospheric Physics, Science have all published skeptical AGW articles. Can you list pro-AGW articles published by E&E?

 

No, I think theyll do research on anything they can get a grant to perform....

If there was a grant for measuring monkey dicks, you could find 10,000 "scientists" world wide pulling out their tape measures.

 

Can we please be a smidge scientific????

What do we know?

1. Al Gore created global warming
2. Al Gore is a Democrat
3. Democrats are Nazis, who ironically, wish to enslave all people in a communist regime, ruled by Africans from Kenya.

Ergo, proved beyond doubt, using pure scientific method and logic, MGW is made up and Al Gore has the world's climate scientists under mind control so they make him richer!!!

[end of thread]

 

Do you know how grants work? You submit your own proposals for research.

You're still implying that they are doing faulty research. Since the majority of research in climate change points to human involvement, you are implying that they are lying about the results.


If there was a grant for measuring monkey dicks scientists would still have to submit their qualifications and detailed proposals on how the planned to carry out said research. I have to break it to you but there is probably a primatologist who has indeed measured a monkey dick.


You really don't have even the slightest grasp on how the science world works.

 

Biggest mistake made by non-scientists is that they believe that research is done with an outcome in mind. Science involves following evidence and making conclusions from the evidence not from expectations. It's the pseudo-scientists and conspiracy theorists who look for evidence to back their expectations.

 

The CO2 concentration you seem so afraid of is 0.00387%

 

It seems that not only have you moved the goal posts, but now you are playing a completely different sport.

If you have no response to my thread because you lack even a basic grasp of science then just say so.

 

Why did the last Ice Age end? Mastodon farts?

 

Not true . Scientific method uses hypothesis .

 

It is still ending

 

They drove Hummers.

 

There was a mile thick sheet of ice over much of North America. Why did it melt? Caveman Hummers?

 

Yes, a hypothesis is a predicted outcome. It does not imply that that will be the outcome.

 

The whole global warming thing is a bunch of BS.

Is change happening? Yes. It has been happening since the earth was formed. It's not linear, it goes in waves...kind of like evolution.

Are we causing any part of the change? No one knows, really...all this hoopla over global warming is currently nothing but the f*cking government taking advantage of their delusional crisis.

We could completely stop burning coal, driving vehicles or creating ANY sort of "carbon foot print" and the earth's environment would continue to change.

Did you know that in about another 4 billion years the earth will cease to exist anyway? Our sun is expanding and one day in that distant future it will expand into a red giant and the surface of the sun will swallow Mercury, Venus and Earth. In fact, the sun is expanding as we speak. What's to say some of that expansion over the last several hundred years isn't responsible for a warming environment...after all, the surface of the sun is closer now than ever before. Has anyone of the vaunted scientists studied that?

 

This is a silly fallacy. Just because something else caused warming in the past does not mean that humans are not causing the climate to change now.


http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

 

Outcome in mind is : predicted outcome . Also known as hypothesis . Carry on .

 

Null hypothesis.

 

I'm willing to bet that an arsenic content of 0.00387% in your blood would make you rather afraid.

Hey, good question. Here's a question for you. If I provide a reasonable scientific answer, will you accept that, and maybe admit that you should've spent literally 15 seconds on google?

(*)(*)(*)(*)ing magnets, how do they work?