Global Warming. Kiss Your Ass Goodbye.

[Indeependent]

OK. So do you think they are actually lying about the importance of methane to AGW? Do they just say what they are paid to say?

I'm genuinely curious. Because I've heard that a LOT. Which I always interpret as being a confession on the part of the person who said it that THEY THEMSELVES lie for money, so they assume EVERYONE LIES FOR MONEY.

Is that what this is about?

Take this post for what it is...
I worked on Wall Street for 16 years and 99% of what everyone from the Board of Directors down to department managers did was so that they would look good, despite their constant lying.
I am a Modern Orthodox Jew and would say there are at least 800 families in my Town and about 1/4 of the hundreds of families I am acquainted with have at least one person working in academia or are in positions to report entity status...
To secure their pay checks and benefits they have to endure their superiors sending back their status reports and amending data until it fits the agenda.

So yes, scientists are working within the parameters or population of what they are instructed and they are personally not happy with the situation.

 

[haveatit]

How did the planet survive 3500 ppm of atmospheric CO2 55 million years ago?

View attachment 652044

Try this graph instead.

Also, why go so far back into the past. Things were a lot different back then. The continents weren't even where they are now. And obviously ocean currents were a lot different. It is what is happening today that matters. Not 55 million years ago. I wonder what deflection from the point you're going to try next.

 

[Crick]

I replied to that post your wrote and asked what is man made global warming. Your response was nothing.

And so you start another post and you say that man made global warming is clear. And yet you've not proven anything. You're proving GLOBAL WARMING is happening. But not MAN MADE global warming.

Go to www.ipcc.ch and look for "The Physical Science Basis". It will explain it to you.

 

[Larry Johnson]

Your disagreement doesn’t alter reality in the slightest.

really?

 

[haveatit]

30 years? Is that how long mankind has before mankind goes extinct from global warming?

Possibly less.

 

[Indeependent]

Possibly less.

How old are you?
If you live that long and you're incorrect, can we all meet and beat the sh!t out of you?

 

[Crick]

Take this post for what it is...
I worked on Wall Street for 16 years and 99% of what everyone from the Board of Directors down to department managers did was so that they would look good, despite their constant lying.
I am a Modern Orthodox Jew and would say there are at least 800 families in my Town and about 1/4 of the hundreds of families I am acquainted with have at least one person working in academia or are in positions to report entity status...
To secure their pay checks and benefits they have to endure their superiors sending back their status reports and amending data until it fits the agenda.

So yes, scientists are working within the parameters or population of what they are instructed and they are personally not happy with the situation.

Can you provide us testimony from a single scientist - from inside the issue - explaining how all the climate scientists on the planet are lying about global warming?

 

[haveatit]

Are we already too late? Are we doomed already?

Who knows. Not I. But even if it is too late, it's never too late to try.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

...there are at least 800 families in my Town and about 1/4 of the hundreds of families I am acquainted with have at least one person working in academia or are in positions to report entity status...
To secure their pay checks and benefits they have to endure their superiors sending back their status reports and amending data until it fits the agenda.

I simply do not believe that the vast majority of science is run by dishonest fraud artists. While I will agree that fraud exists in everything, it is simply irrational to assume that the majority of science is run by only the most dishonest people around.

I have been working as an R&D scientist in government, university and industry for over 30 years and I can safely say that the number of people who partake in "fraudulent manipulation of data" is very limited.

It's the fastest way to end one's career.

So yes, scientists are working within the parameters or population of what they are instructed and they are personally not happy with the situation.

There is no evidence of that. But I appreciated your jaded view after working on Wall Street.

Trust me, few people go into science to make a buck.

And no, science is not by and large made up of people fraudulently manipulating their data. That's offensive.

 

[haveatit]

How old are you?
If you live that long and you're incorrect, can we all meet and beat the sh!t out of you?

And what if you're wrong. There will be nothing to beat. You'll already be dead.

 

[Indeependent]

Can you provide us testimony from a single scientist - from inside the issue - explaining that all the climate scientists on the planet are lying about global warming?

Sure...they all want to lose their careers.
Any other stupid questions?

How about you prove it despite the others here who said you are pushing an established lie?

 

[Indeependent]

I simply do not believe that the vast majority of science is run by dishonest fraud artists. While I will agree that fraud exists in everything, it is simply irrational to assume that the majority of science is run by only the most dishonest people around.

I have been working as an R&D scientist in government, university and industry for over 30 years and I can safely say that the number of people who partake in "fraudulent manipulation of data" is very limited.

It's the fastest way to end one's career.



There is no evidence of that. But I appreciated your jaded view after working on Wall Street.

Trust me, few people go into science to make a buck.

And no, science is not by and large made up of people fraudulently manipulating their data. That's offensive.

dishonest fraud artists

As I specified in my post, it's not the scientists who are frauds, it's the donors with an agenda.

 

[haveatit]

I always marvel at using 1880 as the starting point when the first major, oil field wasn't even tapped until 1905 and it would take several decades thereafter for oil and gas to be prevalent

They were burning coal long before we started using oil in a big way.

 

[Indeependent]

And what if you're wrong. There will be nothing to beat. You'll already be dead.

I'm 62 and I'm still waiting for the Ice Age.
Stick your mental illness where the sun don't shine.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Go to www.ipcc.ch and look for "The Physical Science Basis". It will explain it to you.

Do you really think I come on here to be sent to a website?

Can you really not make an argument? Same as the OP?

 

[haveatit]

I replied to that post your wrote and asked what is man made global warming. Your response was nothing.

And so you start another post and you say that man made global warming is clear. And yet you've not proven anything. You're proving GLOBAL WARMING is happening. But not MAN MADE global warming.

I'm not jesus. You are blind. But I can't make you see. On this point, I doubt if even jesus could. (If you even believe all that crap to begin with)

 

[Indeependent]

And what if you're wrong. There will be nothing to beat. You'll already be dead.

By the way, can we all beat the sh!t out of you?
If I'm not around, I'll have my kids and grandkids beat the sh!t out of you.

 

[Crick]

Do you really think I come on here to be sent to a website?

Can you really not make an argument? Same as the OP?

So, you're not really interested in learning anything.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

dishonest fraud artists

As I specified in my post, it's not the scientists who are frauds, it's the donors with an agenda.

You are mistaken in your premise. If you make the claim that donors' agenda (that's not actually a thing in science grants) drives the scientists to alter their data IN ANY WAY or shade the conclusions they make to comport with the "agenda"...that is fraud.

 

[Indeependent]

You are mistaken in your premise. If you make the claim that donors' agenda (that's not actually a thing in science grants) drives the scientists to alter their data IN ANY WAY or shade the conclusions they make to comport with the "agenda"...that is fraud.

Sure, puppy, whatever you say.
Do you know what a Population is in a study?