Fucking brilliant. That's exactly what it is. People forget that we're not talking about serious debate in the scientific community. We're talking about vested moneyed interest in the billions of dollars fighting against any evidence to protect profit against reasoned scientific debate. If you believe that cigarettes cure cancer, you are not just scientifically radical or exploring a different theory. You are directly supporting a view that protects the interests of profit over the interests of truth and the public good. That's not science, that's hucksterism. It isn't wrong to deny people certification when they are deliberately endangering people. That's why certification was invented. Before the AMA, anyone could make "medicine" and sell it on the street.
Plus, what's the harm in changing our habits to embrace technologies and innovations which do not support Global Warming? What would it hurt? So, we find out later that the billion-to-one chance that Global Warming was not human caused, so what. Then we can go back to burning coal if people want, and there will still be some.
The "climatologist" in the article, if it is indeed one, is expressing an opinion that is not backed up by facts. All other climatologists, based on ice core data, suggest that there is a strong correlation between the two. I was saying that the article is wrong. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.
Another important correlation is between conservative political agendas, oil money, and the "science" that disproves human causation to global warming. If you measure the amount of money invested in specific climatologists by large oil companies and their insistence that global warming is ridiculous, you'll find a 1:1 correlation between the two. On ther other hand, what's the big lobby that supports the crazy "theory" of global warming? What's the big money advantage to those who claim that global warming is real and caused by industrialized human beings? Are the majority of climatologists just doing it because they have some kind of grudge against industry? Do they just hate the oil industry? Are the plant lovers on a quest? Because I can see millions and millions of dollars from oil companies trying to create the illusion that there's still a debate about this issue, but I see no one who benefits on the other side. And I don't understand why people in this forum would even care so much. Why would people go out of there way to support lies for the oil companies when they're not getting paid? Are you afraid someone's going to come take your car away or something? I just don't get it.
There is no "Pro-Global Warming" crowd. Just because you're convinced by the evidence doesn't mean that you're "pro" Global Warming. That sounds like right-wing extremist dichotomies. Either you're with us or against us. Either you support the full rights of an unborn fetus, or your "against life."
Either you're against Global Warming, or you're for it?????? These simple dichotomies make for good soundbites and things to shout at people on the street, but they're not part of reasonable debate. The facts point the the extreme liklihood that human beings are responsible for the current warming trend, and the facts suggest that CO2 is the likliest cause. The levels of CO2 and the global temperature are strongly corrrelated. That doesn't mean that people who accept this are pro Global Warming. What would someone have to gain by being pro Global Warming? As far as I see it, higher levels of CO2 favor plants, not humans, so maybe all the scientists (and it really is ALL the scientists) that simply agree with the data are secretly working for the super-secret plant-world agenda.
The only arguments against the facts are that they might make certain pollutors adopt certain precautionary behaviors, and that might be momentarily expensive for certain industries, and we simply can't inconvenience giant industry, no matter who dies or how many.
In Inuktitut, the language of the Inuit people, "Inuit" means "the people". The English word "Eskimo" comes from the French "Esquimaux" but the origins of this French word are unclear. Many Inuit consider the word Eskimo offensive, but is still in general usage to refer to all Eskimo peoples, though it has fallen into disuse among many Canadian non-Inuit.
Slashdot Mirror
Fucking brilliant. That's exactly what it is. People forget that we're not talking about serious debate in the scientific community. We're talking about vested moneyed interest in the billions of dollars fighting against any evidence to protect profit against reasoned scientific debate. If you believe that cigarettes cure cancer, you are not just scientifically radical or exploring a different theory. You are directly supporting a view that protects the interests of profit over the interests of truth and the public good. That's not science, that's hucksterism. It isn't wrong to deny people certification when they are deliberately endangering people. That's why certification was invented. Before the AMA, anyone could make "medicine" and sell it on the street. Plus, what's the harm in changing our habits to embrace technologies and innovations which do not support Global Warming? What would it hurt? So, we find out later that the billion-to-one chance that Global Warming was not human caused, so what. Then we can go back to burning coal if people want, and there will still be some.
The "climatologist" in the article, if it is indeed one, is expressing an opinion that is not backed up by facts. All other climatologists, based on ice core data, suggest that there is a strong correlation between the two. I was saying that the article is wrong. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. Another important correlation is between conservative political agendas, oil money, and the "science" that disproves human causation to global warming. If you measure the amount of money invested in specific climatologists by large oil companies and their insistence that global warming is ridiculous, you'll find a 1:1 correlation between the two. On ther other hand, what's the big lobby that supports the crazy "theory" of global warming? What's the big money advantage to those who claim that global warming is real and caused by industrialized human beings? Are the majority of climatologists just doing it because they have some kind of grudge against industry? Do they just hate the oil industry? Are the plant lovers on a quest? Because I can see millions and millions of dollars from oil companies trying to create the illusion that there's still a debate about this issue, but I see no one who benefits on the other side. And I don't understand why people in this forum would even care so much. Why would people go out of there way to support lies for the oil companies when they're not getting paid? Are you afraid someone's going to come take your car away or something? I just don't get it.
There is no "Pro-Global Warming" crowd. Just because you're convinced by the evidence doesn't mean that you're "pro" Global Warming. That sounds like right-wing extremist dichotomies. Either you're with us or against us. Either you support the full rights of an unborn fetus, or your "against life." Either you're against Global Warming, or you're for it?????? These simple dichotomies make for good soundbites and things to shout at people on the street, but they're not part of reasonable debate. The facts point the the extreme liklihood that human beings are responsible for the current warming trend, and the facts suggest that CO2 is the likliest cause. The levels of CO2 and the global temperature are strongly corrrelated. That doesn't mean that people who accept this are pro Global Warming. What would someone have to gain by being pro Global Warming? As far as I see it, higher levels of CO2 favor plants, not humans, so maybe all the scientists (and it really is ALL the scientists) that simply agree with the data are secretly working for the super-secret plant-world agenda. The only arguments against the facts are that they might make certain pollutors adopt certain precautionary behaviors, and that might be momentarily expensive for certain industries, and we simply can't inconvenience giant industry, no matter who dies or how many.
In Inuktitut, the language of the Inuit people, "Inuit" means "the people". The English word "Eskimo" comes from the French "Esquimaux" but the origins of this French word are unclear. Many Inuit consider the word Eskimo offensive, but is still in general usage to refer to all Eskimo peoples, though it has fallen into disuse among many Canadian non-Inuit.