July, 2915 hottest on record

Right wing, etc. Same thing post after post. What you mean to say is to only listen to the politically correct scientists since you evidently don't read much more that that.

 

No. I look at what all the scientists say and then if most of them are in agreement, I go with that. I am not going to pretend like I am someone qualified to review the work of scientists. That is the work of fools.

Here is what a non-scientist, Stephen Cobert, said about the right wingers who think they know science better than the non-scientists:

“I hope that these conservative leaders can inspire all the children out there watching to think to themselves, ‘Hey, maybe someday I can grow up to be not a scientist.'”

 

Most scientists don't even work in the climate change field so much of what they know about it they got from the same place you have. I am not surprised you are getting your information from a comedian.

 

I knew you would say that. That is a predictable response. Also, I am not talking about the scientists who do not work in climate science. I am talking about the ones who do and what they say. You position is best described by comedian because it is a joke position. You buy into the ultimate conspiracy theory that all scientists are taking part in a big scheme to defraud the public and none of them care enough about science to be honest. That is really a whacko position.

 

which is readily apparent, hoosier isn't making sense

he's playing at trivial, illogical and ridiculous arguments

 

There you go again, making things up. My you have an active imagination. For someone that admits to not understanding anything about the science, you sure have the political and conspiratorial fantasies down like you study them.

- - - Updated - - -

Not that either of you have yet to comprehend the logical fallacies you both continue to use as a 'debate' tactic.

 

what a joke

 

Meh...since some of you get your science from comedians and cartoonists...

 

you obviously have no clue what you're talking about

 

Of course you would think that reading SKS but then they say that sea level will rise between 1.5 ft and 5 ft by 2100 (that is 85 years for the math challenged) yet at the current rate of 1.8 mm per year will take around 170 years just to rise 1 foot which is well within natural variability. But then, you believe everything you read on a cartoonists blog so....

 

all you're doing is confirming my previous assertion

 

I didn't make up? I said "You buy into the ultimate conspiracy theory that all scientists are taking part in a big scheme to defraud the public and none of them care enough about science to be honest.". Are you changing your position?

 

You really haven't a clue what is going on in peer review or the whole mess right now with the billions poured into climate science by government. You should look into some of that. There is a reason why the IPCC has Intergovernmental in it. It does no science but is a report writing organization that writes for government policy decisions and the first report out is not a science report but a report for government. This isn't some conspiracy like you would like to paint it and a scientist is not some god like figure but human like you and me. The IPCC snatched up Mann's hockey stick when it came out because it was inline with the agenda. There is a reason they had to drop it and you should also look into that. You should also look into why it is hard to get published if you do not follow the current government agenda. Any science counter to the agenda would threaten the cash cow government has made of this. Before the hysteria, only a few grants per year were ever given. If you want to keep the gravy train coming, you don't swim upstream. If you want a position in academia, you don't spit into the wind. If you want advancement in the field, you don't slam the door behind you.

 

the difference between the money some researchers get from government

and the funding agw deniers get from the fossil-fuel industry

is that researchers are looking for the truth

deniers are looking to get paid

[video=youtube;IaKm89eVhoE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaKm89eVhoE[/video]

 

Bwahahahaha! More of the alarmist pap. You obviously think that scientists receiving the billions from government are working for free while the few dollars spent by business on lobbying are making the scientists rich.

Yes, we know, science by Youtube.

 

the video contains verified facts and evidence

i think most scientists work hard doing difficult research

then they write papers presenting their findings and get peer-reviewd

you don't see the koch brother's lobbyist going to all that trouble, they just want money

 

Sure thing. I don't know how you can argue that the small amount of other money can influence science, after all, alarmists have long argued that the deluge of government money available to climate scientists who produce studies which support the views of politicians, has no influence on the content of the studies.

 

it influences people that don't understand science

 

So you are saying that it influences scientists who don't understand science. Got it.

 

no that's not what i'm saying, i was referring to under-educated people

the scientists that the kochs pay are just unethical

they say what they pay them to say

 

And the scientists benefiting from the deluge of money from government are just pure as gold. How about the skeptical scientists that receive no money from the Koch Bros? How does that wool feel over your eyes?

 

the ones i know, work hard to find the truth

like who?

 

Ah, so name the scientists you 'know' in climate change.

You made the claim, it is up to you to provide evidence, tell us which skeptical scientists are receiving Koch money.

 

michael mann, katharine hayhoe, david kirtley and greg laden

here's a short list of scientists the get money from koch, heartland and etc

joseph bast, willie soon, cornelis van kooten, jay lehr, roy spencer, anthony watts et al

 

I asked a simple question. Are all of the scientists in the world part of a conspiracy or not? Do you not want to take a position?