FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
NASA under Cruz control

NASA under Cruz control

(7:27) In January 2015, Republican Texas senator Ted Cruz was appointed to chair the overseeing of NASA's space and science programs. His past record is worrying for NASA, in 2013 he tried to cut NASA's budget and failed, and he doesn't believe climate change is a problem. Theoretical physicist Michio Kaku said: Ted Cruz overseeing NASA is "like having the fox guard the chicken coop".

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (857 days ago)

I thought all the scientists agreed the planet is warming so we we do not need to investigate that further. We are all going to die and that's fact because the scientists already said it's so.

There is existing data and satellites so there is no need to spend more money to prove something all 97% of scientists already agree on.

ReplyVote up (101)down (71)
Original comment

I thought all the scientists agreed the planet is warming so we we do not need to investigate that further. We are all going to die and that's fact because the scientists already said it's so.

There is existing data and satellites so there is no need to spend more money to prove something all 97% of scientists already agree on.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
iknowlessthanyoudo iknowlessthanyoudo (857 days ago)
Your fatalistic view would leave unanswered many remaining questions that could help us ameliorate and possibly prevent extreme sea rise.
ReplyVote up (82)down (101)
Original comment
Your fatalistic view would leave unanswered many remaining questions that could help us ameliorate and possibly prevent extreme sea rise.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (857 days ago)

Maybe the experts are wrong. How would we know if we don't have data?

ReplyVote up (69)down (101)
Original comment

Maybe the experts are wrong. How would we know if we don't have data?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (857 days ago)

Really? Is that possible? I thought you of all people were so certain that global warming was a real thing and all life in the universe was going to die.

Do you have doubt now?

ReplyVote up (89)down (101)
Original comment

Really? Is that possible? I thought you of all people were so certain that global warming was a real thing and all life in the universe was going to die.

Do you have doubt now?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (857 days ago)

97% is not 100%.

ReplyVote up (101)down (86)
Original comment

97% is not 100%.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (857 days ago)

Then there is hope for you that you'll eventually see the light.

ReplyVote up (92)down (101)
Original comment

Then there is hope for you that you'll eventually see the light.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (857 days ago)

It is reasonable to believe that 97% of climate scientists are correct, and 3% are rogue.

It is not credible that 3% of climate scientists are correct, and 97% are rogue - unless of course you can shed light on a global conspiracy, or global incompetence among climate scientists.

ReplyVote up (94)down (101)
Original comment

It is reasonable to believe that 97% of climate scientists are correct, and 3% are rogue.

It is not credible that 3% of climate scientists are correct, and 97% are rogue - unless of course you can shed light on a global conspiracy, or global incompetence among climate scientists.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (856 days ago)

Actually, the 97% of scientists number is highly disputed. It's actually a percentage of cherry picked papers that mention something about human caused global warming and not necessarily representative of the views of the scientists that wrote the papers.

Unless someone creates a list of the scientists that agree and those that do not agree so the percentage can be calculated accurately, I will never believe that 97% of scientists agree that humans are the cause of global warming.

ReplyVote up (86)down (101)
Original comment

Actually, the 97% of scientists number is highly disputed. It's actually a percentage of cherry picked papers that mention something about human caused global warming and not necessarily representative of the views of the scientists that wrote the papers.

Unless someone creates a list of the scientists that agree and those that do not agree so the percentage can be calculated accurately, I will never believe that 97% of scientists agree that humans are the cause of global warming.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (856 days ago)

I know about the 97%. We've been through it a hundred times before. They weren't cherry picked, they were picked by a keyword search.

But that's all so last decade. From ALL climate research in 2013, that was 10,885 peer-reviewed papers, only 2 (that's TWO), rejected AGW. LINK

This is not scientists' opinions, it is their actual research.

So which is the more likely? 10,883 are right, and 2 are wrong? Or 10,883 are wrong, and 2 right?

Original comment

I know about the 97%. We've been through it a hundred times before. They weren't cherry picked, they were picked by a keyword search.

But that's all so last decade. From ALL climate research in 2013, that was 10,885 peer-reviewed papers, only 2 (that's TWO), rejected AGW. LINK

This is not scientists' opinions, it is their actual research.

So which is the more likely? 10,883 are right, and 2 are wrong? Or 10,883 are wrong, and 2 right?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (856 days ago)

People usually do not write about things that do not exist. For example, how many papers are out there that proves God doesn't exist? Very few. So only those scientists that were funded to write papers about AGW actually wrote the papers instead of people funded to disprove it. Get where the issue is now? So that's why you need to poll actual scientists instead of papers that were written.

AGW is one of those things that hasn't even reached a theory level. Right now it is just a hypothesis and the best evidence available is counting the number of papers written about it? And you don't think there's a problem wtih that? This is a huge issue for me. I need more proof that something is true instead of just listing the number of papers. If that was the best scientific method we had, we would all still believe God exists because there are more papers saying God exists than there are about God not existing.

ReplyVote up (91)down (101)
Original comment

People usually do not write about things that do not exist. For example, how many papers are out there that proves God doesn't exist? Very few. So only those scientists that were funded to write papers about AGW actually wrote the papers instead of people funded to disprove it. Get where the issue is now? So that's why you need to poll actual scientists instead of papers that were written.

AGW is one of those things that hasn't even reached a theory level. Right now it is just a hypothesis and the best evidence available is counting the number of papers written about it? And you don't think there's a problem wtih that? This is a huge issue for me. I need more proof that something is true instead of just listing the number of papers. If that was the best scientific method we had, we would all still believe God exists because there are more papers saying God exists than there are about God not existing.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (856 days ago)

OK, so the 10,883 papers were written by scientists trying to prove AGW. If AGW is actually false, then these papers were either written by incompetent climate scientists who have misinterpreted the data, or they are faking it to look like AGW is actually true. Which do you think it is?

ReplyVote up (101)down (78)
Original comment

OK, so the 10,883 papers were written by scientists trying to prove AGW. If AGW is actually false, then these papers were either written by incompetent climate scientists who have misinterpreted the data, or they are faking it to look like AGW is actually true. Which do you think it is?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (856 days ago)

They were paid by someone to do the research and the expected outcome is what they made sure their papers said. Also, not sure if you're aware of this but all it had to do was mention that humans may be the cause of global warming and not offer any proof to be counted in the 97%.

ReplyVote up (101)down (95)
Original comment

They were paid by someone to do the research and the expected outcome is what they made sure their papers said. Also, not sure if you're aware of this but all it had to do was mention that humans may be the cause of global warming and not offer any proof to be counted in the 97%.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (856 days ago)

We're not talking about the 97%. We are talking about the 99.9998%.

So your position is that all climate research in 2013 (10,885 papers) was fiddled, except for 2 papers?

ReplyVote up (84)down (101)
Original comment

We're not talking about the 97%. We are talking about the 99.9998%.

So your position is that all climate research in 2013 (10,885 papers) was fiddled, except for 2 papers?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (856 days ago)

Refer to my message two messages above. Re-read it and try to understand it the second time.

ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment

Refer to my message two messages above. Re-read it and try to understand it the second time.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (856 days ago)

If a scientist is paid to write a paper that supports AGW, and AGW doesn't actually exist, then he's making something up, or incompetent. Do you agree?

ReplyVote up (78)down (101)
Original comment

If a scientist is paid to write a paper that supports AGW, and AGW doesn't actually exist, then he's making something up, or incompetent. Do you agree?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (856 days ago)

The mention of AGW makes the paper count as supporting AGW. Get it now? You don't need to supply proof.

Original comment

The mention of AGW makes the paper count as supporting AGW. Get it now? You don't need to supply proof.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (856 days ago)

So if a scientist who is studying, say, the effect of sea level rise on the Antarctic seal population, mentions AGW, then that peer-reviewed paper would be classed as supporting AGW (one of the 10,883), even though it wasn't specifically studying AGW.

Is that what you mean?

ReplyVote up (101)down (77)
Original comment

So if a scientist who is studying, say, the effect of sea level rise on the Antarctic seal population, mentions AGW, then that peer-reviewed paper would be classed as supporting AGW (one of the 10,883), even though it wasn't specifically studying AGW.

Is that what you mean?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (856 days ago)

What I am saying is that the papers did not need to provide any proof -- just state opinions was sufficient.

Did you see this article from 2013, "Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis"? LINK

You probably chose to ignore it because it doesn't support your preconceived views.

Original comment

What I am saying is that the papers did not need to provide any proof -- just state opinions was sufficient.

Did you see this article from 2013, "Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis"? LINK

You probably chose to ignore it because it doesn't support your preconceived views.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (856 days ago)

Opinions are not sufficient in peer-reviewed papers. They will not get published. Unless of course it's a global conspiracy.

Is that what you think? A global conspiracy?

Original comment

Opinions are not sufficient in peer-reviewed papers. They will not get published. Unless of course it's a global conspiracy.

Is that what you think? A global conspiracy?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (856 days ago)

As long as the peer reviewing it has the same opinion, why doesn't it get published?

ReplyVote up (84)down (101)
Original comment

As long as the peer reviewing it has the same opinion, why doesn't it get published?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Drumbeat (856 days ago)

Peer review papers require that you show your "workings" so that another scientist or peer can duplicate your work to check or verify the results. You would be surprised how many actually do.

Politicians like the IPCC seem to have a problem with this too.

ReplyVote up (96)down (101)
Original comment

Peer review papers require that you show your "workings" so that another scientist or peer can duplicate your work to check or verify the results. You would be surprised how many actually do.

Politicians like the IPCC seem to have a problem with this too.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (856 days ago)

Because peer review is about other experts in the same field checking the work of their peers. It is not about opinion. You need experts in the same field to do the checking because the subjects require expert knowledge. You would expect (and insist) on UN inspectors checking for weapons of mass destruction, to be experts in weapons of mass destruction, wouldn't you?

You said: "They were paid by someone to do the research and the expected outcome is what they made sure their papers said." So you are accusing climate scientists of falsifying data, or purposely misinterpreting data to come out with the conclusion they were paid to find.

If that is not picked up in peer review, then the system is either corrupt, or climate scientists are so incompetent that they don't notice.

Which is it? Are climate scientists incompetent, or corrupt?

ReplyVote up (80)down (101)
Original comment

Because peer review is about other experts in the same field checking the work of their peers. It is not about opinion. You need experts in the same field to do the checking because the subjects require expert knowledge. You would expect (and insist) on UN inspectors checking for weapons of mass destruction, to be experts in weapons of mass destruction, wouldn't you?

You said: "They were paid by someone to do the research and the expected outcome is what they made sure their papers said." So you are accusing climate scientists of falsifying data, or purposely misinterpreting data to come out with the conclusion they were paid to find.

If that is not picked up in peer review, then the system is either corrupt, or climate scientists are so incompetent that they don't notice.

Which is it? Are climate scientists incompetent, or corrupt?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (856 days ago)

Just like Ben Stein's "No Intelligence Allowed" where scientists are not allowed to believe in God, if they do not believe in AGW, they can be fired. Nobody, unless they have tenure, will go against the popular opinion in fear of being ridiculed and/or losing their job.

I remember giving you a tenured professor's opinion and how this happens but, as usual, you ignored it.

ReplyVote up (91)down (101)
Original comment

Just like Ben Stein's "No Intelligence Allowed" where scientists are not allowed to believe in God, if they do not believe in AGW, they can be fired. Nobody, unless they have tenure, will go against the popular opinion in fear of being ridiculed and/or losing their job.

I remember giving you a tenured professor's opinion and how this happens but, as usual, you ignored it.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (856 days ago)

There are plenty of scientists who believe in God. If their research assumes/requires that God exists, their research should not pass peer review, unless they can provide evidence of God's existence.

So back to climate scientists, are they incompetent or corrupt?

ReplyVote up (74)down (101)
Original comment

There are plenty of scientists who believe in God. If their research assumes/requires that God exists, their research should not pass peer review, unless they can provide evidence of God's existence.

So back to climate scientists, are they incompetent or corrupt?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (856 days ago)

There you go again with your infinite loop trying to get me to answer your question about corruption or incompetence. Try reading what I typed for the reason instead of trying to box me into your own ideals of what is going on.

ReplyVote up (101)down (86)
Original comment

There you go again with your infinite loop trying to get me to answer your question about corruption or incompetence. Try reading what I typed for the reason instead of trying to box me into your own ideals of what is going on.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (856 days ago)

You said: "They were paid by someone to do the research and the expected outcome is what they made sure their papers said."

That sounds to me like corruption. I'm just trying to get you to confirm that that's what you really mean.

ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment

You said: "They were paid by someone to do the research and the expected outcome is what they made sure their papers said."

That sounds to me like corruption. I'm just trying to get you to confirm that that's what you really mean.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (856 days ago)

Are you being stupid or are you just dumb?

ReplyVote up (91)down (101)
Original comment

Are you being stupid or are you just dumb?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (856 days ago)

lol, talking about yourself again? lol

Original comment

lol, talking about yourself again? lol

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (856 days ago)

Hopefully neither.

Explain what "They were paid by someone to do the research and the expected outcome is what they made sure their papers said." means, if it is not that scientists are "adjusting" their work to meet an expected outcome.

Original comment

Hopefully neither.

Explain what "They were paid by someone to do the research and the expected outcome is what they made sure their papers said." means, if it is not that scientists are "adjusting" their work to meet an expected outcome.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (856 days ago)

Yes, they adjust their work to meet the expected outcome.

I'm paid to write a book to prove AGW. So then I discover CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Humans produce CO2. AGW must be human caused. Paper gets peer reviewed and then published. Notice that no proof is given and no alternative explanations given. Even if alternative explanations are given, if AGW is mentioned as a possibility, it automatically gets put into the 97%.

ReplyVote up (101)down (83)
Original comment

Yes, they adjust their work to meet the expected outcome.

I'm paid to write a book to prove AGW. So then I discover CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Humans produce CO2. AGW must be human caused. Paper gets peer reviewed and then published. Notice that no proof is given and no alternative explanations given. Even if alternative explanations are given, if AGW is mentioned as a possibility, it automatically gets put into the 97%.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (856 days ago)

Any science paper that adjusts results or conclusions to fit an expected outcome should be rejected. If the peers don't spot the fraud, but you do, then they are incompetent. If they do spot it but don't reject the research, then they are covering something up.

So we're back to the same question, incompetence or conspiracy? Which do you think it is?

I think it's neither. I think the vast majority of climate scientists are not adjusting their results to fit an expected outcome, but are reporting the results as they find, ie. working how scientists should work.

BTW, your example of climate research is hilarious, but far from reality. Scientists do not get grants to prove CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That was proven a hundred years ago. Scientists get grants to predict future scenarios like - how our climate will change when we add 40 billion tons of CO2 in 2015. Or what if we contiunue to add 40 billion tons every year, how much will the oceans absorb, and how will that affect marine life... etc.

There's no dispute in how much CO2 we are adding to the atmosphere, or that CO2 traps heat. Scientists are looking at whether that CO2 is affecting the climate. The data says yes. Even you'd expect that wouldn't you? That billions of tons of CO2 added every year will at some point affect the climate.

Original comment

Any science paper that adjusts results or conclusions to fit an expected outcome should be rejected. If the peers don't spot the fraud, but you do, then they are incompetent. If they do spot it but don't reject the research, then they are covering something up.

So we're back to the same question, incompetence or conspiracy? Which do you think it is?

I think it's neither. I think the vast majority of climate scientists are not adjusting their results to fit an expected outcome, but are reporting the results as they find, ie. working how scientists should work.

BTW, your example of climate research is hilarious, but far from reality. Scientists do not get grants to prove CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That was proven a hundred years ago. Scientists get grants to predict future scenarios like - how our climate will change when we add 40 billion tons of CO2 in 2015. Or what if we contiunue to add 40 billion tons every year, how much will the oceans absorb, and how will that affect marine life... etc.

There's no dispute in how much CO2 we are adding to the atmosphere, or that CO2 traps heat. Scientists are looking at whether that CO2 is affecting the climate. The data says yes. Even you'd expect that wouldn't you? That billions of tons of CO2 added every year will at some point affect the climate.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (856 days ago)

I agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I also know that it's not the worse offending greenhouse gas and that there are others such as methane and water vapor that traps in more heat that the CO2. The amount of CO2 that is in our atmosphere is actually less than what is in our historical record and so if it is causing any increase in temperature, it is a minuscule amount.

Plants rely on CO2 to grow. Humans produce CO2 and plants consume it and that becomes part of a natural balance. The tenured scientist I gave you the article about said that the earth will naturally balance itself out so if there is too much heat, more water will evaporate and make clouds and those clouds will reflect more light away from the planet reaching a perfect equilibrium (another natural balance).

You may not like it but the 16C average we are at is not the natural balance of the planet. That is 25C and has been the average temperature during the majority of the time life existed on the planet. The exceptions are when catastrophic events happen like getting hit by an asteroid that put us into an ice age.

We are currently in one of those ice ages and are coming out of it. We will eventually reach the standard earth temperature of 25C just like it has been in the past for so many millions of years before humans existed. If you or other animals refuse to adapt to the new environment, you will die off and leave room for the animals that can survive.

ReplyVote up (101)down (70)
Original comment

I agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I also know that it's not the worse offending greenhouse gas and that there are others such as methane and water vapor that traps in more heat that the CO2. The amount of CO2 that is in our atmosphere is actually less than what is in our historical record and so if it is causing any increase in temperature, it is a minuscule amount.

Plants rely on CO2 to grow. Humans produce CO2 and plants consume it and that becomes part of a natural balance. The tenured scientist I gave you the article about said that the earth will naturally balance itself out so if there is too much heat, more water will evaporate and make clouds and those clouds will reflect more light away from the planet reaching a perfect equilibrium (another natural balance).

You may not like it but the 16C average we are at is not the natural balance of the planet. That is 25C and has been the average temperature during the majority of the time life existed on the planet. The exceptions are when catastrophic events happen like getting hit by an asteroid that put us into an ice age.

We are currently in one of those ice ages and are coming out of it. We will eventually reach the standard earth temperature of 25C just like it has been in the past for so many millions of years before humans existed. If you or other animals refuse to adapt to the new environment, you will die off and leave room for the animals that can survive.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (856 days ago)

Let's not get distracted. Incompetence or conspiracy?

ReplyVote up (101)down (90)
Original comment

Let's not get distracted. Incompetence or conspiracy?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (856 days ago)

I will answer that once you tell me if you are being stupid or just dumb.

ReplyVote up (83)down (101)
Original comment

I will answer that once you tell me if you are being stupid or just dumb.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (855 days ago)

According to you, climate scientists are adjusting their papers to match an expected outcome. This breaks the core foundation of science.

10,885 papers in 2013 were not rejected by the peer review process. So my question is, are climate scientists so incompetent that they didn't spot fraud among their colleagues, or are they hiding something?

Or maybe you have another explanation? Please make it as intriguing as I am stupid and dumb.

ReplyVote up (101)down (85)
Original comment

According to you, climate scientists are adjusting their papers to match an expected outcome. This breaks the core foundation of science.

10,885 papers in 2013 were not rejected by the peer review process. So my question is, are climate scientists so incompetent that they didn't spot fraud among their colleagues, or are they hiding something?

Or maybe you have another explanation? Please make it as intriguing as I am stupid and dumb.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (855 days ago)

You think scientists cherry picking data like the hockey puck graph breaks the core foundation of science? Good for you. You are finally understanding the AGW issues.

I'm surprised you didn't mention a survey of papers is not proof of a scientific hypothesis to make it into the theory category. So far, that's the only proof they have and the one they keep rubbing in. A survey of scientists or the papers they wrote has no bearing on any scientific method out there.

Original comment

You think scientists cherry picking data like the hockey puck graph breaks the core foundation of science? Good for you. You are finally understanding the AGW issues.

I'm surprised you didn't mention a survey of papers is not proof of a scientific hypothesis to make it into the theory category. So far, that's the only proof they have and the one they keep rubbing in. A survey of scientists or the papers they wrote has no bearing on any scientific method out there.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (855 days ago)

Are the scientists who tell you that human activity is warming the climate, lying?

Original comment

Are the scientists who tell you that human activity is warming the climate, lying?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (855 days ago)

Not telling the whole story so they have near zero credibility.

Original comment

Not telling the whole story so they have near zero credibility.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (855 days ago)

Is that because they can't be bothered, or they are purposely trying to deceive?

Original comment

Is that because they can't be bothered, or they are purposely trying to deceive?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (855 days ago)

Generally speaking, when people leave out important details, they are trying to deceive. For example, why do they leave out the fact that the average temperature of the planet has almost always been 25C and it's only 16C now? Instead, they show a hockey puck graph that doesn't go back too far and even skips the mediaeval warming period. That’s cherry picking data to deceive people without telling them the whole truth.

So yes, the planet may have warmed 0.8C in the past 100 years but that is nothing compared to the real history of the planet but they purposely leave that out.

ReplyVote up (95)down (101)
Original comment

Generally speaking, when people leave out important details, they are trying to deceive. For example, why do they leave out the fact that the average temperature of the planet has almost always been 25C and it's only 16C now? Instead, they show a hockey puck graph that doesn't go back too far and even skips the mediaeval warming period. That’s cherry picking data to deceive people without telling them the whole truth.

So yes, the planet may have warmed 0.8C in the past 100 years but that is nothing compared to the real history of the planet but they purposely leave that out.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (855 days ago)

Great, we finally got there. You believe there's a conspiracy. That all the peer-reviewed climate papers in 2013 (except 2), were adjusted to deceive the public that AGW is true when in fact it's not.

And 97% of all peer reviewed climate papers between 1991 and 2011, they were also adjusted to deceive.

Thank you so much for your brilliant detective work. This is HUGE! I hope the media don't get wind of this. It'll make FIFA look like boy scouts.

ReplyVote up (101)down (85)
Original comment

Great, we finally got there. You believe there's a conspiracy. That all the peer-reviewed climate papers in 2013 (except 2), were adjusted to deceive the public that AGW is true when in fact it's not.

And 97% of all peer reviewed climate papers between 1991 and 2011, they were also adjusted to deceive.

Thank you so much for your brilliant detective work. This is HUGE! I hope the media don't get wind of this. It'll make FIFA look like boy scouts.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (855 days ago)

Not a conspiracy but more doing the bidding of the people who pay them. This is why research by big oil companies differ from research from NASA. NASA is paid by the government to find every obscure reference to AGW and big oil research is there to continue selling oil without people worrying about AGW.

Original comment

Not a conspiracy but more doing the bidding of the people who pay them. This is why research by big oil companies differ from research from NASA. NASA is paid by the government to find every obscure reference to AGW and big oil research is there to continue selling oil without people worrying about AGW.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (855 days ago)

OMG. Governments all around the world have been paying climate scientists to adjust their research to prove AGW, since at least 1991, and with a phenomenal success rate of 97%.

Why do you think they do it, and how do you think governments coordinate their agendas so well? I think we can all learn something here.

My advice is, don't spill the beans on BoreMe, go directly to Fox News.

ReplyVote up (101)down (98)
Original comment

OMG. Governments all around the world have been paying climate scientists to adjust their research to prove AGW, since at least 1991, and with a phenomenal success rate of 97%.

Why do you think they do it, and how do you think governments coordinate their agendas so well? I think we can all learn something here.

My advice is, don't spill the beans on BoreMe, go directly to Fox News.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (855 days ago)

I'm not sure why people do what they do. That would require speculation and that's not what I do.

However, it could be that the government wants people to use fewer natural resources and scare tatics is one way to do that. We want to be independent on foreign oil and reducing our consumption is part of the government's plan.

ReplyVote up (87)down (101)
Original comment

I'm not sure why people do what they do. That would require speculation and that's not what I do.

However, it could be that the government wants people to use fewer natural resources and scare tatics is one way to do that. We want to be independent on foreign oil and reducing our consumption is part of the government's plan.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (855 days ago)
Latest comment:

I would like to know how so many governments all around the world, over a period of at least 25 years, have coordinated the biggest global public hood-winking imaginable. Thanks for spotting it.

I'm especially disappointed to learn how many climate scientists will adjust their findings, just for a grant - 97%! Thank God for the 3%. They must work for the fossil fuel industry.

Keep up the good work. Spreading the truth must weigh heavy on your shoulders. Twat.

ReplyVote up (81)down (100)
Original comment
Latest comment:

I would like to know how so many governments all around the world, over a period of at least 25 years, have coordinated the biggest global public hood-winking imaginable. Thanks for spotting it.

I'm especially disappointed to learn how many climate scientists will adjust their findings, just for a grant - 97%! Thank God for the 3%. They must work for the fossil fuel industry.

Keep up the good work. Spreading the truth must weigh heavy on your shoulders. Twat.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Scientists turn carbon dioxide into stone
Scientists turn carbon dioxide into stone
It's Okay To Be Smart - Talk with your inner climate conscience
It's Okay To Be Smart - Talk with your inner climate conscience
TYT - One of the worst wildfires in California history
TYT - One of the worst wildfires in California history
Tropical forests now emit more CO2 than all US cars and trucks combined
Tropical forests now emit more CO2 than all US cars and trucks combined
David Pakman - Oceans are acidifying
David Pakman - Oceans are acidifying