...people spending 6.5 million to defend science, while a handful of warmist organizations have budgets of nearly 500 million?
Defend science? Where do you get that from?
His effort will focus on providing a curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain--two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.
I can be paid to call Human-induced Climate Change a crock of shit? Sign me up! Can I also be paid to advocate that sugar is sweet and the sun is bright?
No, but you can be paid to say that excess sugar consumption has no health consequnes and that CFC's don't damage the Ozone layer.
Yes, all this data that proves the point beyond all doubt. But when questioned, there is no debate of scientific merit or discussion of flaws, real or perceived, in the data. There is labeling the counter opinion "deniers" while firmly placing your hands over your ears.
The other side (the ones you say that have nothing but "denial") says the data, models, and research is not comprehensive enough to support the grandiose claims being made, and they have their own data, models, research, and conclusions which conflict with the AGW proponents.
Well, where the fuck is it then?
What you said is simply not true. The "skeptics" can't even make their minds up why they don't believe AGW isn't happening.
Unfortunately both sides of this subject have gotten far too emotional to even consider the possibility that the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.
And this opinion of yours is based on what scientific research?
This is not a political debate. Its reality.
Reality is that thing that doesn't go away when you don't believe in it.
Recently, it was posited on line that it was more likely that the free market and the decreasing supply of fossil fuels (leading to cost increases) will naturally spur on innovations that achieve the goals many environmentalists have
we should be looking at the process used to award government grants to people who propose studies with the goal of proving man-made global warming while denying funds to those who are trying to disprove man-made global warming
In fact nobody is being paid the "prove man made global warming".
Scientists are being paid to find out what is going on.
I've heard of people in the UK who opted to go paperless, then later required their credit card or bank statements (or whatever it was) in printed form to get a loan or something- and the bank charged them up the wazoo to get the necessary statements in traditional printed format.
And here in France my electricity and gas companies are always nagging me to go paperless for my bills.
But many administrative functions require proof of residence, and a recent gas/electric/water bill is the most commonly used proof of residence.
Even AGW people admit that water is the REAL problem, and that CO2 is just a trigger for increases in that heat-storing gas. But for some reason they seem to chafe at the idea of using condensers and other methods to remove the water from the air.
This is amazingly stupid even for you.
You're going to use insane amounts of energy (where are you going to get it? Burning coal?) to remove water vapour from the air.
Only to discover that the only result is to increase evaporation from the oceans.
The percentage of water vapour in the atmosphere depends on the temperature. Thats it.
For example, do you remember how polar bears drowning in the Arctic sea due to global warming were cited as a reason to classify them as an endangered species, and how they were used as a symbol of climate change in Al Gore's movie? The lead scientist was actually placed on administrative leave
You mean that there was a witch-hunt. And you think that's a good thing?
A witch hunt by illiterates:
“We never mentioned global warming in the paper,” Gleason told the investigators, according to the transcript.
“But it’s inferred,” responded investigator Eric May. “That’s why the world took it up as a global warming tangent.”
The decline that is trying to be hidden, is the one from the tree ring proxy data if you continue to use it post about 1950. So they stop using the tree ring proxy data and instead splice on actual temperature readings. In their sample set the tree ring proxy data would go down, which obviously doesn't match the temperature record. This implies that maybe tree ring data is not a good proxy for temperature.
Oh, you mean the one they "hid" by writing a paper about it.
Realclimate is known to push propaganda over science. Don't trust it. Especially when you can read the actual paper itself, which actually means something.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_vaccine
Never seen that site before. Don't see any reason to revisit it.
Whose site is it?
Meanwhile, you are still changing the topic. Where do you see any evidence that the Heartland Institute are trying to defend science.
(P.S. Look at my sig you twit).
Warmists insist that the science is settled. That kind of appeal to authority is anti-science,
Continue arguing with the people who only exist in your head.
I would love to own an electric car.
Personaly I use a nuclear powered train.
Oh, you thought there would be no nead to change your lifestyle. Sorry.
the way i look at it, global warming is a political issue created by al gore..
Sorry, no.
Margret Thatcher talked about it long before Al Gore.
Helped organise the creation of the IPCC too.
...people spending 6.5 million to defend science, while a handful of warmist organizations have budgets of nearly 500 million?
Defend science? Where do you get that from?
His effort will focus on providing a curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain--two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.
Some defence.
If you read the documents, there is nothing there. Just a budget and a few names, no real discussion and such.
You didn't notice that they're paying Fred Singer? One of the few "scientists" on the denier side?
One of the many benefits of this leak is that quite a lot of their donors will stop donating.
Look at your own sig.
You don't know who Anonymous Donor is, so he can keep on giving.
I can be paid to call Human-induced Climate Change a crock of shit? Sign me up! Can I also be paid to advocate that sugar is sweet and the sun is bright?
No, but you can be paid to say that excess sugar consumption has no health consequnes and that CFC's don't damage the Ozone layer.
Yes, all this data that proves the point beyond all doubt. But when questioned, there is no debate of scientific merit or discussion of flaws, real or perceived, in the data. There is labeling the counter opinion "deniers" while firmly placing your hands over your ears.
Please. Cite one real example. Go on.
"hands over your ears". Talk about projection.
The other side (the ones you say that have nothing but "denial") says the data, models, and research is not comprehensive enough to support the grandiose claims being made, and they have their own data, models, research, and conclusions which conflict with the AGW proponents.
Well, where the fuck is it then?
What you said is simply not true. The "skeptics" can't even make their minds up why they don't believe AGW isn't happening.
Unfortunately both sides of this subject have gotten far too emotional to even consider the possibility that the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.
And this opinion of yours is based on what scientific research?
This is not a political debate. Its reality.
Reality is that thing that doesn't go away when you don't believe in it.
Recently, it was posited on line that it was more likely that the free market and the decreasing supply of fossil fuels (leading to cost increases) will naturally spur on innovations that achieve the goals many environmentalists have
Fracking.
Tar Sands.
Coal.
Game over. Please move to a new planet.
What happened America? You used to be cool.
Wipes blood off, leaves America slumped over, dead, in the car.
we should be looking at the process used to award government grants to people who propose studies with the goal of proving man-made global warming while denying funds to those who are trying to disprove man-made global warming
In fact nobody is being paid the "prove man made global warming".
Scientists are being paid to find out what is going on.
What else would one pay them for.
And who, exactly, is being refused funding?
I've heard of people in the UK who opted to go paperless, then later required their credit card or bank statements (or whatever it was) in printed form to get a loan or something- and the bank charged them up the wazoo to get the necessary statements in traditional printed format.
And here in France my electricity and gas companies are always nagging me to go paperless for my bills.
But many administrative functions require proof of residence, and a recent gas/electric/water bill is the most commonly used proof of residence.
So I keep getting the paper ones.
Of course it's FUD.
When did "explosives" become "a weapon of mass destruction".
Even AGW people admit that water is the REAL problem, and that CO2 is just a trigger for increases in that heat-storing gas. But for some reason they seem to chafe at the idea of using condensers and other methods to remove the water from the air.
This is amazingly stupid even for you.
You're going to use insane amounts of energy (where are you going to get it? Burning coal?) to remove water vapour from the air.
Only to discover that the only result is to increase evaporation from the oceans.
The percentage of water vapour in the atmosphere depends on the temperature. Thats it.
For example, do you remember how polar bears drowning in the Arctic sea due to global warming were cited as a reason to classify them as an endangered species, and how they were used as a symbol of climate change in Al Gore's movie? The lead scientist was actually placed on administrative leave
You mean that there was a witch-hunt. And you think that's a good thing?
A witch hunt by illiterates:
“We never mentioned global warming in the paper,” Gleason told the investigators, according to the transcript.
“But it’s inferred,” responded investigator Eric May. “That’s why the world took it up as a global warming tangent.”
Hey, Eric May - the word is "implied".
Twat.
Did you?
Read the emails?
Or just carefuly chosen out of context excerpts?
Terms like "denier" or "believer" have no place in this debate.
What convenient one-word label should we use for the anti-science side of this debate?
Troll.
That's what they are. Trolls.
The decline that is trying to be hidden, is the one from the tree ring proxy data if you continue to use it post about 1950. So they stop using the tree ring proxy data and instead splice on actual temperature readings. In their sample set the tree ring proxy data would go down, which obviously doesn't match the temperature record. This implies that maybe tree ring data is not a good proxy for temperature.
Oh, you mean the one they "hid" by writing a paper about it.
Ok, got you.
Really -- A lot of the stuff I read on his site is the links to the emails written by these so called authority discussing how to "hide the decline.".
So, what decline would that be?
Go on, tell us, we're dying to know.
Realclimate is known to push propaganda over science. Don't trust it. Especially when you can read the actual paper itself, which actually means something.
Known, eh.
Is the RC summary contradicted by the paper?
I will pay less attention to your posts.
Ok, have fun in your little fantasy land.