The climate religion is God’s gift. (God spoke to NOAA, right?) Hail the Episcopal Bishop who “knows” which experts are right in this science debate. She hath declared that certified climate scientists paid by government grants speak the word of God. Other scientists (like 48% of Meteorologists, and two thirds of Geo’s and Engineers, plus practically everyone retired from NASA) are immoral, blind, threatening the poor, and wrong. The Guardian: Climate denial is immoral, says head of US Episcopal church http://joannenova.com.au/2015/03/the-climate-religion-is-gods-gift-god-spoke-to-noaa-right/
That is not my argument at all, & you know it. Why the distortion? I am arguing that we should learn what we learn, & not learn by dogmatic assertion. Truth by mandate is a return to the dark ages, & is unbecoming an enlightened people. ..just repeated assertions, again. What you claim by assertion, i can dismiss by assertion. I stand by my own observations & opinions, & dismiss your assertions, which have no basis. That indicates the most industrialization. We have also done the most to limit pollutants & protected the environment, compared to other large, industrial nations. I'm not talking about world leaders at all. I'm talking about the working man getting to keep the fruits of their labors, instead of being robbed by state centered bureaucracies which are nothing but looters of the common man. How could you get 'insisting that everyone be ahead of us', out of my post?
A partnership of major foundations interested in sustainable energy. You didn't think it was a government program, did you? BTW, their two $50,000 grants was only about 4% of Berkeley Earth's total funding. I doubt they had much influence on their findings.
All donations, except for the Energy Foundation grant, were provided as unrestricted educational grants, which means the donor organizations have no say over our activities or what we publish
You do realize that tenure only keeps you from being fired, and it doesn't guarantee your grants will be approved. Apparently not.
And your point is? Last time I checked, "unrestricted" meant they couldn't tell you what to do with it. - - - Updated - - - If you think the entire point is that climate researchers are being paid to support global warming, then there is nothing to miss.
Again you prove you have no idea what is going on. Not one but seven scientists that don't parrot the politically correct line.
Google? Don't be so lazy and try to keep up with current events. I can't keep doing your homework for you.
That's hoosier's way of saying he's invoking one of his cult's sacred fables. Being it's a religious belief, it can't be refuted. They've got a long list of sacred cult fables, the deniers. They chant them whenever their souls are in danger of being contaminated by knowledge from the world outside of the cult.
Read Curry's CV. The list of climate related organizations that reward her work and enjoy her membership is long - even though her views on warming are not all that consistent with those organizations. And, yes, every scientist must prove themselves before their word alone makes them the center of attention.
This is an astounding statement given the fact that the US is FAR worse in per capita output of the key offending substances affecting climate than is ANY of the world's "large, industrial nations" - or even just large nations, or first world nations, or pretty much ANY category of nation. And, our own political right wing has worked HARD to keep it that way. Other large industrial nations HAVE taken action, and it shows. The US has spent its efforts defeating progress on a world wide approach. Again, you pitch this as something where movement is equivalent to making ourselves "looters of the common man" - and that IS something where we would want to be the very last. But, this excuse for refusing to be leaders is also a false excuse. The movement we've seen from other nations has not turned them into "looters of the common man". In fact, it has shown where the US needs to follow.
I was not talking about the phony 'co2' emission, but real pollution. Water, air, particulates.. the US has done a tremendous job of cleaning up emissions & water pollution. Most of the emerging 3rd world nations make little attempt to do so. China, Russia, India, Iran.. these are real polluters, not just measured by co2, but toxic wastes, co, & other pollutants that do damage. CO2, is not a dangerous gas. It is absorbed by plants, & is needed. A bit more or less in the atmosphere has not been proven to be dangerous at all. It has been SPECULATED, but not proven. As far as we know, it makes the plants grow better. Now, if you dump millions of tons of particulates, CO, and other toxic by products from industrial or volcanic activity, then there might be an issue.. if anyone wanted to study that. But making co2 a pariah is a faulty premise, that has NO evidence to support the claim. What 'large industrial nations?' China? Russia? We are sandwiched between them in co2 emissions, so what have they done to reduce them? They do precious little in PROVEN toxic pollutants, but get a pass? The pollute the water, dump nuclear waste, & have little regard for any green mandates. Why just pick on the US for their attempts at building a better environment? I dispute your charge that the us tries to defeat environmental improvement. They do better than any large industrial nation, & better than a lot of smaller ones who pollute with impunity. I don't see any nations 'leading' on this issue, but most as bobble heads for some global agenda, where Americans are fleeced & their labors redistributed to rich people in poor countries.
Which hasn't stopped her from getting millions in grants from DOE, NASA, NOAA, and NSF. Please, tell us again how the government is giving her these grants to find a crisis.
- your "co2 isn't toxic" argument is totally bogus. Whether it is toxic isn't at issue - it's a total red herring. - natural science doesn't have a system of proof of truth. There is only proof of falsehood. Your whole concept of science is wrong on this point. Today, the vast majority of climatologists agree that human activity IS warming our planet, with human carbon contribution to our atmosphere being the primary reason. - no, we emit FAR more co2 per capita than ANY large nation. China is about 4x our population, so the fact that they emit more in total is a poor attempt to justify our pollution contribution. - We do WORSE than other first world nations in controlling co2 - as seen by us being worse than ALL of them. - "impunity"??? Are you actually interested in punishment? What should be OUR punishment? Or, do we get to pollute worse than the rest - with "impunity"? - your last paragraph is ignorance. The US is WAY down the list of first world nations as ordered by per capita foreign aid. Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece are the only EU nations worse than the USA on a per capita basis. Norway and Denmark give 5 times as much as we do, per capita. And, I mean that literally, not figuratively. btw, we NEVER wait for "proof" before making public policy. So, even just claiming that you are waiting for "proof" from science means you not only don't understand how science works, but also don't understand how we go about incorporating science in our public policy.
