homersapien 11,357 Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 But my degree is bigger than yours... Said the one with not a single Nobel Prize... But I do have 8 US patents. How about you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
japantiger 4,051 Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 The climate change industry has gotten $32b in direct US federal grants; for the purpose of proving global warming; which they haven't done yet. Non gov't sourced funding pales in comparison.. So drop the sanctimonious funding bull****. Your hypothesis can't fail every test and be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTim 3,456 Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Did anyone else notice (as I only did just now) that the very first two sentences of the opening article contradicted each other? Quoting: "A couple of days ago we reported on the Mainau Nobel Conference, on Friday, 3 July, over 30 Nobel laureates assembled on Mainau Island on Lake Constance signed a declaration on climate change. Problem was, there were 65 attendees, and only 30 signed the declaration." [My highlighting and underlining] Nice writing or counting, Climate Depot. <_</> :-\/> I don't have a degree in mathematics, but in grammar school, I learned that 65 was more than 30. Haha. Well stated Sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTim 3,456 Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 But my degree is bigger than yours... Said the one with not a single Nobel Prize... :laugh:/> But I do have 8 US patents. How about you? So you are the guy that invented the Water Weenie!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFTiger 282 Posted July 9, 2015 Author Share Posted July 9, 2015 But my degree is bigger than yours... Said the one with not a single Nobel Prize... But I do have 8 US patents. How about you? Congratulations. If you are that smart, how could you say so many wrong things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,357 Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 The climate change industry has gotten $32b in direct US federal grants; for the purpose of proving global warming; which they haven't done yet. Non gov't sourced funding pales in comparison.. So drop the sanctimonious funding bull****. Your hypothesis can't fail every test and be right. I suggest you drop your lies and distortions. Research grants are hardly equivalent to financing special interest groups to promote an agenda. The fact most such research supports AGW is a different "problem", but one that is easily explained. Of course, if one sincerely believes the scientific community is dedicated to perpetuating a hoax, there's really no point in arguing the science is there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,357 Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Did anyone else notice (as I only did just now) that the very first two sentences of the opening article contradicted each other? Quoting: "A couple of days ago we reported on the Mainau Nobel Conference, on Friday, 3 July, over 30 Nobel laureates assembled on Mainau Island on Lake Constance signed a declaration on climate change. Problem was, there were 65 attendees, and only 30 signed the declaration." [My highlighting and underlining] Nice writing or counting, Climate Depot. <_</> :-\/> I don't have a degree in mathematics, but in grammar school, I learned that 65 was more than 30. Haha. Well stated Sir. There's that famous sense of humor again. :-\ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,357 Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 But my degree is bigger than yours... Said the one with not a single Nobel Prize... :laugh:/> But I do have 8 US patents. How about you? So you are the guy that invented the Water Weenie!!! Nope. But even if I had, I wouldn't profit. All the rights to my patents were signed over to my employer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUtiger98 24 Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 But my degree is bigger than yours... Said the one with not a single Nobel Prize... But I do have 8 US patents. How about you? I bet you're a lot of fun at parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weegle777 78 Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 But my degree is bigger than yours... Said the one with not a single Nobel Prize... :laugh:/> But I do have 8 US patents. How about you? I bet you're a lot of fun at parties. :sleeping:/> Bet he is that guy that gives his resume to every person at the party because of insecurity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quietfan 233 Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 The climate change industry has gotten $32b in direct US federal grants; for the purpose of proving global warming; which they haven't done yet. Non gov't sourced funding pales in comparison.. So drop the sanctimonious funding bull****. Your hypothesis can't fail every test and be right. I suggest you drop your lies and distortions. Research grants are hardly equivalent to financing special interest groups to promote an agenda. The fact most such research supports AGW is a different "problem", but one that is easily explained. Of course, if one sincerely believes the scientific community is dedicated to perpetuating a hoax, there's really no point in arguing the science is there? Homer, I believe the paradigm here is:"Research funded by public government agencies is motivated by 'the purpose of proving' the party line, and therefore the results of that research cannot be trusted." "Research funded by private for-profit organizations is immune to such motivations with only truth and betterment of mankind at heart, and therefore the results of that research cannot be questioned." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,357 Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 But my degree is bigger than yours... Said the one with not a single Nobel Prize... But I do have 8 US patents. How about you? I bet you're a lot of fun at parties. Weegle seemed interested enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,357 Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 But my degree is bigger than yours... Said the one with not a single Nobel Prize... :laugh:/> But I do have 8 US patents. How about you? I bet you're a lot of fun at parties. :sleeping:/> Bet he is that guy that gives his resume to every person at the party because of insecurity. You'd do better betting that I am independently wealthy. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,357 Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 The climate change industry has gotten $32b in direct US federal grants; for the purpose of proving global warming; which they haven't done yet. Non gov't sourced funding pales in comparison.. So drop the sanctimonious funding bull****. Your hypothesis can't fail every test and be right. I suggest you drop your lies and distortions. Research grants are hardly equivalent to financing special interest groups to promote an agenda. The fact most such research supports AGW is a different "problem", but one that is easily explained. Of course, if one sincerely believes the scientific community is dedicated to perpetuating a hoax, there's really no point in arguing the science is there? Homer, I believe the paradigm here is:"Research funded by public government agencies is motivated by 'the purpose of proving' the party line, and therefore the results of that research cannot be trusted." "Research funded by private for-profit organizations is immune to such motivations with only truth and betterment of mankind at heart, and therefore the results of that research cannot be questioned." Well yeah! The Tobacco industry proved that! :-\ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,357 Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Clearly they don't know anything about science. How many Nobel Prize winning Physicists are on this forum? I am more interesting in knowing the number of science degrees on the forum. I've got two. How about you? Since you asked:I don't have a Nobel prize, but I have two degrees in physics and a third in mathematics...along with 38 years of teaching physics at the university level including courses in astronomy, physical chemistry, and biophysics at times. Teaching those courses requires some knowledge of planetary/climate science, thermodynamics, quantum tunneling, and CO2 respiration/photosynthesis in plants, but I would never be so presumptuous as to call myself an 'expert' in those fields. If we are talking about understanding the science of global warming in depth, then you are way more qualified than me. I'll bring my technical questions to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quietfan 233 Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Clearly they don't know anything about science. How many Nobel Prize winning Physicists are on this forum? I am more interesting in knowing the number of science degrees on the forum. I've got two. How about you? Since you asked:I don't have a Nobel prize, but I have two degrees in physics and a third in mathematics...along with 38 years of teaching physics at the university level including courses in astronomy, physical chemistry, and biophysics at times. Teaching those courses requires some knowledge of planetary/climate science, thermodynamics, quantum tunneling, and CO2 respiration/photosynthesis in plants, but I would never be so presumptuous as to call myself an 'expert' in those fields. If we are talking about understanding the science of global warming in depth, then you are way more qualified than me. I'll bring my technical questions to you. You're welcome to ask, but no guarantees regarding the value of my answers IF I have any... As noted before: "I would never be so presumptuous as to call myself an 'expert' in those fields". I claim no understanding of anything "in depth"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,357 Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Clearly they don't know anything about science. How many Nobel Prize winning Physicists are on this forum? I am more interesting in knowing the number of science degrees on the forum. I've got two. How about you? Since you asked:I don't have a Nobel prize, but I have two degrees in physics and a third in mathematics...along with 38 years of teaching physics at the university level including courses in astronomy, physical chemistry, and biophysics at times. Teaching those courses requires some knowledge of planetary/climate science, thermodynamics, quantum tunneling, and CO2 respiration/photosynthesis in plants, but I would never be so presumptuous as to call myself an 'expert' in those fields. If we are talking about understanding the science of global warming in depth, then you are way more qualified than me. I'll bring my technical questions to you. You're welcome to ask, but no guarantees regarding the value of my answers IF I have any... As noted before: "I would never be so presumptuous as to call myself an 'expert' in those fields". I claim no understanding of anything "in depth"! Obviously neither of us are experts. What I am referring to is the ability to understand the research that is presented by experts. You likely have a deeper appreciation for the physics and math presented. My greatest strength is direct experience in conducting research. Having published in a scientific journal, I am also pretty familiar with that process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFTiger 282 Posted July 10, 2015 Author Share Posted July 10, 2015 The climate change industry has gotten $32b in direct US federal grants; for the purpose of proving global warming; which they haven't done yet. Non gov't sourced funding pales in comparison.. So drop the sanctimonious funding bull****. Your hypothesis can't fail every test and be right. I suggest you drop your lies and distortions. Research grants are hardly equivalent to financing special interest groups to promote an agenda. The fact most such research supports AGW is a different "problem", but one that is easily explained. Of course, if one sincerely believes the scientific community is dedicated to perpetuating a hoax, there's really no point in arguing the science is there? Homer, I believe the paradigm here is:"Research funded by public government agencies is motivated by 'the purpose of proving' the party line, and therefore the results of that research cannot be trusted." "Research funded by private for-profit organizations is immune to such motivations with only truth and betterment of mankind at heart, and therefore the results of that research cannot be questioned." Well yeah! The Tobacco industry proved that! :-\ Government funding corrupts science just as badly. Just listen to the EPA's Gina McCarthy's babble. Something’s amiss at the Department of Interior. Eight government scientists were recently fired or reassigned after voicing concerns to their superiors about faulty environmental science used for policy decisions. Which begs the question, “Are some government agencies manipulating science to advance political agendas?”Fictional book authors operate in a convenient world, unconstrained by facts and experiences of the real world. The antithesis of works of fiction are scientific findings solely based on provable facts and experience. For agenda-driven environmental science, facts can sometime prove inconvenient. It’s far easier to advance an agenda with agreeable science, even if that means creating science fiction or fictional science. Fictional science thus becomes the pseudo-reality of environmentalist’s absolutism, and any science that disagrees with their predetermined conclusions of man-made harm to the environment is ignored or distorted. Now we learn that in some government agencies, scientists who question the veracity and validity of scientific evidence used to formulate environmental regulations and policies are shunned, kept quiet, and purged. The purpose of fictional environmental science is to sway public opinion through what amounts to propaganda. Intransigent purveyors of “green” propaganda know their greatest enemy is truth. One of the most famous propaganda experts was Germany’s Joseph Goebbels, who taught that if a lie is repeated often enough it will eventually be accepted as truth. Goebbels also knew that truth has to be suppressed if it contradicts the objectives of the propaganda. Goebbels wrote, “It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Over the past three decades, government has unleashed an unprecedented wave of environmental rules and regulations that affect nearly every aspect of American life, and for the most part the public has tolerated it. Public embrace of environmental propaganda and fear mongering about the apocalyptic consequences of mankind’s abuse of the planet has elevated environmentalism to a status above national security. The public is now more likely to give up rights and freedoms for the cause of saving the planet than for security reasons. Rural America has long been a target of environmentalists. Government agencies such as the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and the DOI (Department of Interior) have been hijacked by extreme elements the of environmentalist movement, and rural America is feeling the heat. When environmental protocol is pitted against the welfare of a rural community, these agencies almost exclusively side with the environmental cause, and adverse consequences to the human element are considered last, if at all. The Department of Interior refers to itself as the nation’s landlord. It controls almost 30% of the nation’s 2.27 billion acres of land and its natural resources, and, as a regulatory agency, it creates policies to govern how public land and these resources are used. Under the leadership of Secretary Ken Salazar, the agency has engaged in an aggressive crusade to obstruct and undermine the use of natural resources, restrict human access to public lands, and increase its influence over private property. Decisions made by the agency are presumed to be based on sound scientific analysis, but often times it is policy that is driving the science. This has led to harmful decisions and a violation of the public trust. A case in point is the story of DOI science adviser and scientific integrity officer, Dr. Paul Houser, who found out that simply doing his job can be hazardous to one’s career. Dr. Houser is an expert in hydrology who was hired by DOI’s Bureau of Reclamation to evaluate scientific data used in the department’s decision making process. He was assigned several Western State projects including a scheme to remove four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in Northern California–the largest dam removal project in U.S. history. When a summary of science posted on the web to support DOI’s claim for removal of the dams omitted several crucial factors from expert panel reports, Dr. Houser brought his concerns to his superiors. He was repeatedly told to refrain from sharing his concerns through electronic communication, which could be subject to Freedom of Information Act discovery. Dr. Houser learned firsthand that policy was driving the science, rather than the other way around, when he was told by his superiors at DOI, “Secretary Salazar wants to remove those dams. So your actions here aren’t helpful.” According to the DOI the premise for Klamath River dams removal is to restore Coho salmon spawning habitat above the dams. However, official DOI documents reveal scientific concerns that dam removal may, in fact, result in species decline based on millions of tons of toxic sediment build-up behind the dams that will make its way to the ocean. Water temperature increases without the dams could also negatively impact the salmon. These studies were ignored. Concerns about the human toll and impact to local Klamath Basin communities were also brushed aside. Those most interested in the well-being of the environment they live and work in were given a backseat to special interests thousands of miles away. The Klamath hydroelectric dams provide clean inexpensive energy to thousands of local residents who will be forced to pay much higher premiums if the dams are removed because California has strict new laws for use of renewable energy. The town of Happy Camp sits on the banks of the Klamath River and could be wiped out by seasonal flooding without the dams. Once Coho salmon are introduced into the upper Klamath, farmers and ranchers will be faced with water use restrictions and invasive government regulation of private land. The economic impact will be devastating, property values will depreciate, and the agriculture community, often operating on slim profit margins, will be subjected to the fate of the once-vibrant logging industry which fell victim to the spotted owl crusades. Last year, Dr. Houser raised these concerns and was subsequently fired by the DOI. “I put my concerns forward and immediately thereafter I was pushed out of the organization,” he stated. The agency sent a clear message to the rest of their employees and scientists–Salazar’s dam-busting agenda cannot be subject to any internal scientific scrutiny. Truth must be repressed when it contradicts the objective. Dr. Houser did the right thing. He did his job. His integrity as a scientist was more important than a paycheck. But he remains concerned about his colleagues in DOI: There are a lot of good scientists that work for the government but they are scared, they are scared that what happened to me might happen to them. This is an issue (about) the honesty and transparency of government and an issue for other scientists in government who want to speak out. A few weeks ago Dr. Houser settled a wrongful discharge case with the DOI. Terms of his settlement are not public. Now, seven more DOI scientists working on the Klamath Project have filed a complaint with PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility), claiming they have been reassigned or terminated for disagreement with the integrity of the science used to support dam removal. They have charged DOI’s Bureau of Reclamation’s management with “coercive manipulation, sublimating science to political priorities, censorship, and scientific misconduct.” The government’s use of fictional science in the Klamath dam removal project should concern every American. Our public servants at DOI are brazenly advancing their own agendas at the expense of the truth and regardless of adverse impacts on the environment, humans, and on rural communities. Environmental and human interests are not incompatible. We have to find solutions that work to the benefit of both. That requires agendas be put aside and allow complete science to determine policy. DOI Secretary Ken Salazar is stepping down in March. His replacement needs to be someone who can be trusted to end the culture of fictional science as a means to advance environmental agendas. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/01/18/government-scientist-fired-for-telling-the-truth/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,357 Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Breitbart has blown this up to be something it was not. Independent evaluation of the scientific record pertaining to the allegations of Dr. Paul Howser http://www.doi.gov/s...dent-Report.pdf Another good source for information on this: http://www.peer.org/...x=0&y=0&id=3406 Sounds to me like the process is working more-or-less like the the way it's supposed to. (And the dams are still there.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.