sorry AK. I listen to scientists on both sides and make my decision afterwards. People with no agenda do this. Dumb people, as you like to call someone that has a different opinion from yours, only listen to one side. They also totally discount other scientists that differ and tow the party line. Only you know for sure which one you are. I have my thoughts but I will keep them to myself because name calling is so childish.
Lmao! What both sides are you talking about? There is one side in academia, then there is the Heartland Institute and other .com blogs that pay scientists to be against global warming. Otherwise, there might be a handful of scientists out of thousands that have produced any peer reviewed research against global warming. It's not even a debate in academia. You already know what side you are on regardless of what evidence is provided. It's called confirmation bias. It's how dumb people view the world. And I'm not trying to insult you, your argument is just very dumb. There is no other way to put it.
Really? I expected better? I don't tow a company line. My beliefs have been the same for a long time. I will knock on any president. My beliefs have nothing to do with Obama, Gore, or Bush? The people who always tow the company line are on this board though. You ever wonder why Joe, Dave, Acceb agree on EVERYTHING the right says? Those guys are the real line towers. Anyone who's beliefs and values revolve around a politician's voice is a loon.
Way to take things out of context. You've lost it man.
It's funny how I'm the only one here willing to admit that there are people smarter than me that research, study, and analyze the climate. I don't read .com blogs and think I'm all of a sudden a genius who can discredit an entire world of scientists who know more about the topic than me.
The righties on this board honestly believe they know more than scientists. Willie honestly believes that it is sun causing the warming, scott honestly believes they are wrong because scientists have been wrong before, Joe is just a psycho and believes whatever he wants.
It's funny how righties work. They are completely disconnected from the real world. Not a single person on this site could read actual academic research done by these climate scientists and have the slightest effing clue what they are talking about. You guys have been able to dumb it down to a level that Sarah Palin and Cliven Bundy can understand. Your masters got you guys by the balls, lol.
Undecided on global warming. I only think too much is devoted to this issue and if global warming is a fact it's already too late.
Regarding my "Science for hire" comment, and this goes for all the studies about sexual preferences as well, it's simply this -- When you fund research toward a desired result and the 'study' is conducted by scientists who want to affirm those same beliefs the study will be steered to that result. And I'll bet there are many studies that are scrapped when the data can't be manipulated to achieve the desired outcome.
Was referring to Scottcarter there...
But, all I say to your post is studying the climate is not easy. The tools and analysis is incredibly complex. Stuff none of us here would know how to read or how to discredit. So the people actually doing the work, not just sitting behind a computer trying to tell a story, are coming to these conclusions with the real data they are gathering. I haven't come across a single scientist that has gone to antarctica, built these new satellites to read climate data more efficiently, lived in the arctic studying ice melts and ocean temperatures, etc, etc that does not believe the earth is melting and warming. Especially the overwhelming data that the oceans are warming. I listen to the real scientists not the ones trying to tell a story based on some political belief.
Are you saying the Heartland Foundation has a bias? Oh no wait, that was me
Yea, it's hilarious how people talk about the government's agenda as if the Heartland is unbiased and has the real science. This is an actual email leaked from the Heartland Institute.
Heartland plays an important role in climate communications, especially through our in-house experts (e.g., [Heartland's James] Taylor) through his Forbes blog and related high profile outlets, our conferences, and through coordination with external networks (such as WUWT and other groups capable of rapidly mobilizing responses to new scientific findings, news stories, or unfavorable blog posts). Efforts at places such as Forbes are especially important now that they have begun to allow highprofile climate scientists (such as Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own. This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out. Efforts might also include cultivating more neutral voices with big audiences (such as Revkin at DotEarth/NYTimes, who has a well-known antipathy for some of the more extreme AGW communicators such as Romm, Trenberth, and Hansen) or Curry (who has become popular with our supporters). We have also pledged to help raise around $90,000 in 2012 for Anthony Watts to help him create a new website to track temperature station data. Finally, we will consider expanding these efforts further, or developing new ones, if funding can be obtained.
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...rtland-institute-documents-climate-scepticism
