You quoted me. Why? And what does your nonsense have to do with the topic of the thread? Note to self: Find the /ignore button. Life's too short.
Mocking a sarcastic response to a legitimate point is valid. My original post called " for the children " a bumper sticker response and I stand by that. Care to debate that point honestly or can I expect another sarcastic response, AKA running from the issue.
Just suggesting that the next time some conservative whines about jobs going overseas he might want to check what 'hypocrisy' means. I know, do you?
Well then, why don't you advocate for keeping big money out of science? I would have no problems with research labs receiving some baseline funding, whether they are doing "hot" science or not. It was your side, however, that sees no value in anything that doesn't have a profit motive. So, when you inject the profit motive into science that's what you get, people doing science to get rich, not because they love science. Oh, the beauty of the free market, it drag everything down to the lowest common denominator.
Grants to universities are not an example of the free market. They are an example of activism and agenda driven "science" which is not science at all but in reality the exact opposite. Real science seeks truth it does not seek to prove a preconcieved notion.
No, it didn't. At all. I have already posted the RSS data that shows that this claim is bull(*)(*)(*)(*). This is the RSS data from 1996. Not flat. At all They also claimed that UAH also showed no warming. What data are they looking at exactly? The article was just straight up horse (*)(*)(*)(*). And it's outdated. It relied on being able to cherry pick the warmest El Nino recorded in '97 to make it appear as there was no warming. Now that 2015 has broken that record, it is no longer possible to do that. As can be seen in the above RSS data.
Spoken like someone who has no idea how grants work. Or how science works. But yes, yes. We all know this is a 50+ year global conspiracy perpetuated by millions of scientists, tens of thousands of research studies, and every country on the planet. Just to make you pay more taxes or something.
Nope; science works by proposing a theory (your preconceived notion) and seeking to prove it. Exactly the opposite to what you suggest.
When all else fails cry conspiracy. It is one of the buzzwords used by the left in an attempt to marginalize opposition.
Science works by testing a theory not by trying to prove it true. Your perverted view on science is what had happened in the AGW crowd though so thanks for admitting that out loud so to speak. The scientific method attempts to explain the natural occurrences (phenomena) of the universe by using a logical, consistent, systematic method of investigation, information (data) collection, data analysis (hypothesis), testing (experiment), and refinement to arrive at a well-tested, well-documented, explanation that is well-supported by evidence, called a theory. The process of establishing a new scientific theory is necessarily a grueling one; new theories must survive an adverse gauntlet of skeptics who are experts in their particular area of science; the original theory may then need to be revised to satisfy those objections." http://www.oakton.edu/user/4/billtong/eas100/scientificmethod.htm
Care to actually address my post instead of rehashing the same (*)(*)(*)(*) I already disproved? Your "source" harps on about the lack of warming since 1996. That is horse (*)(*)(*)(*), as I already pointed out. We've already warmed ~1 degree C. Another degree C would put us at the threshold of what scientists say is "safe" and what countries have been working to prevent. So that is certainly not anemic. In fact, for the first time in recorded history, the Northern Hemisphere breached 2 degrees C above normal earlier this month. http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_t...ocking_global_warming_temperature_record.html - - - Updated - - - So what part of the evidence for human caused climate change are you disputing? Is it the greenhouse effect? Because that has been long established with multiple lines of empirical evidence since the early 1800s (perhaps they were in on the conspiracy back then too?) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect Is it the increase the earth has seen in observed greenhouse effect? Because that is also well established. Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 : Abstract : Nature Is it that CO2 is the cause of the current increase in the greenhouse effect? Because that is also well established. CO2 warming causes the troposhephere to warm and the stratosphere to cool. That is indeed what has been seen http://www.pnas.org/content/110/43/17235.full.pdf And increase in the greenhouse effect from would also cause nights to warm faster than days. This has been proven to be true. KNMI - Global observed changes in daily climate extremes of temperature and precipitation How do we know that the increased CO2 causing the greenhouse effect to amplify and warm the earth comes from fossil fuels? Because isotopes don't lie http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf
