how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[Foxfyre]

Your still unsubstantiated opinion is noted and set aside as you still can't back up what you're typing out.

Nice attempt at running, but it won't work. I'll just go right back to the point you're running from.

Scientists take a pay cut to be on the AGW side. Yet you accuse them of greed. How can someone be greedy for taking a pay cut? You claim money corrupts, but then you give your allegiance to the side that's been corrupted by money.

That is simply absurd. Please back it up with links.

He won't. He won't back up anything. He has swallowed the assigned talking points hook, line, and sinker, couldn't explain most of them in his own words if he had to, and if he does post something other than his silly accusations, unsubstantiated statements, and insults to the rest of us, it is something cut and pasted from an AGW alarmist site with absolutely nothing to support it from any credible site.

And hell, I still don't know if humankind is seriously affecting the climate and I keep an open mind. But I sure as hell know they won't fix it by tightening the screws of those countries that are already doing a good job of controlling greenhouse gasses while they give everybody else on the planet a pass. And since I'm pretty darn sure they don't plan to give up their cars, refrigerators, air conditioners, electric lights, television sets, etc. etc. etc. etc., the idea that we are seriously going to reverse climate change by taking away people's liberties, choices, freedoms, and options is simply absurd.

And I simply don't understand those who want to put all the power to do that in the hands of people who have demonstrated already that they don't like us much, won't hesitate to control us even more than they already do, and who have given us no reassurance that they have our best interests at heart.

 

[Saigon]

Fox -

I find the logic in your post very difficult to follow - where on this forum do you see people recommending we all give up our air con or lights?

Can you post some links to those quotes?

Because it seems to me that 90% of these threads is about establishing the science behind climate changes science without going too much in to possible solutions, and the other 10% is about new technologies.

For all of the talk about alarmism from scientists - suggesting we will all need to live without lights if scientists get their way seems like some fairly extreme alarmism to me!

And I simply don't understand those who want to put all the power to do that in the hands of people who have demonstrated already that they don't like us much, won't hesitate to control us even more than they already do, and who have given us no reassurance that they have our best interests at heart.

Who do you mean?

I have absolutely no idea what you are getting at here.

 

[westwall]

Sure thing little one. Go ahead and slink back to your bedroom. The fact remains you are a liar and can't back up any of the bullshit you post and you can't stand it when someone like me calls you on your lies.

I get it. When you can't win you pack up your marbles and go home. So go away permanently you little twerp.

Saigon can debate rings around you and doesn't even need the A-game to do it. I wouldn't talk too much about others not backing up their shit, when you didn't provide a link either.

Now that you called her a liar, care to prove it?

Did you do what she claimed? Did you leave out that line from the professor? Why don't you pony up the link and then we'll see who's the one lying?

I have PROVEN saggy wrong on so many occasions that the little twerp can't stand the heat. Nor can you little sock.

 

[gslack]

Fox -

I find the logic in your post very difficult to follow - where on this forum do you see people recommending we all give up our air con or lights?

Can you post some links to those quotes?

Because it seems to me that 90% of these threads is about establishing the science behind climate changes science without going too much in to possible solutions, and the other 10% is about new technologies.

For all of the talk about alarmism from scientists - suggesting we will all need to live without lights if scientists get their way seems like some fairly extreme alarmism to me!

And I simply don't understand those who want to put all the power to do that in the hands of people who have demonstrated already that they don't like us much, won't hesitate to control us even more than they already do, and who have given us no reassurance that they have our best interests at heart.

Who do you mean?

I have absolutely no idea what you are getting at here.

And we are tired of your weak game.. You can't quote people fairly, yet you claim you don't understand somebody.. Why not quote them and cite them fairly for a change?

You have been asked repeatedly to do so, yet you persist in this behavior. Why? Because you know you can argue whatever you make up that way.. It's not funny, it's not cute, it's not witty or unique, it's trifling and immature.

Quote people fairly or stop responding to their posts, or be considered a troll..

 

[westwall]

SSDD -

Firstly, it is not only climate scientists who have concluded that CO2 causes the warming, but physicists, geologists, biologists, and experts from every related field. It is also the conclusion of all 60 of the world's leading scientific organisations.

Secondly, there is overwhelming evidence of the link between CO2 and temperature, but you refuse to look at it.

Thirdly, we both know that money is not an issue, because we have seen on several threads that the funding of most climate-related science is not on a per-project basis. You must have "forgotten" that.

BS, it's CLIMATOLOGISTS predominantly who support the scam. Real scientists are now running from the scam. Soon they will be calling for the heads of the various fraudsters due to the damage to science in general that they have done. Academic fraud is rampant within climatology. The corruption of the peer review process has rendered everything the do suspect...especially when they publish papers that have already gone through their peer review, only to see them demolished in hours when the general public gets to see them.

And ALL science research is based on a per-project basis nimrod.

 

[westwall]

SSDD -

As I said - you ignore the science. You always do.

The papers you provided are not science. They are science FICTION. There was no empirical data in ANY of the papers you posted I checked. Did you?

 

[westwall]

Nice attempt at running, but it won't work. I'll just go right back to the point you're running from.

Scientists take a pay cut to be on the AGW side. Yet you accuse them of greed. How can someone be greedy for taking a pay cut? You claim money corrupts, but then you give your allegiance to the side that's been corrupted by money.

That is simply absurd. Please back it up with links.

He won't. He won't back up anything. He has swallowed the assigned talking points hook, line, and sinker, couldn't explain most of them in his own words if he had to, and if he does post something other than his silly accusations, unsubstantiated statements, and insults to the rest of us, it is something cut and pasted from an AGW alarmist site with absolutely nothing to support it from any credible site.

And hell, I still don't know if humankind is seriously affecting the climate and I keep an open mind. But I sure as hell know they won't fix it by tightening the screws of those countries that are already doing a good job of controlling greenhouse gasses while they give everybody else on the planet a pass. And since I'm pretty darn sure they don't plan to give up their cars, refrigerators, air conditioners, electric lights, television sets, etc. etc. etc. etc., the idea that we are seriously going to reverse climate change by taking away people's liberties, choices, freedoms, and options is simply absurd.

And I simply don't understand those who want to put all the power to do that in the hands of people who have demonstrated already that they don't like us much, won't hesitate to control us even more than they already do, and who have given us no reassurance that they have our best interests at heart.

They don't like ANYBODY Foxy. Having dealt with these folks for as long as I have I can safely assure you that people are the lowest critter on the care meter. They would happily kill everyone in India to save 3,600 tigers. On the other hand I've shown them how you can save both but they don't care to hear it.

Some are better than others but in the end they really do want the human race to be cut down to around a 100 million or so to run the machinery that keeps the elite alive and they will be in their compressed cities while the elite get to enjoy the great outdoors without the sweaty masses.

And I am sorry my verbiage annoys you at times, but I have had to deal with these idiots for so long now that my tolerance levels are low...very, very low.

 

[gslack]

That is simply absurd. Please back it up with links.

He won't. He won't back up anything. He has swallowed the assigned talking points hook, line, and sinker, couldn't explain most of them in his own words if he had to, and if he does post something other than his silly accusations, unsubstantiated statements, and insults to the rest of us, it is something cut and pasted from an AGW alarmist site with absolutely nothing to support it from any credible site.

And hell, I still don't know if humankind is seriously affecting the climate and I keep an open mind. But I sure as hell know they won't fix it by tightening the screws of those countries that are already doing a good job of controlling greenhouse gasses while they give everybody else on the planet a pass. And since I'm pretty darn sure they don't plan to give up their cars, refrigerators, air conditioners, electric lights, television sets, etc. etc. etc. etc., the idea that we are seriously going to reverse climate change by taking away people's liberties, choices, freedoms, and options is simply absurd.

And I simply don't understand those who want to put all the power to do that in the hands of people who have demonstrated already that they don't like us much, won't hesitate to control us even more than they already do, and who have given us no reassurance that they have our best interests at heart.

They don't like ANYBODY Foxy. Having dealt with these folks for as long as I have I can safely assure you that people are the lowest critter on the care meter. They would happily kill everyone in India to save 3,600 tigers. On the other hand I've shown them how you can save both but they don't care to hear it.

Some are better than others but in the end they really do want the human race to be cut down to around a 100 million or so to run the machinery that keeps the elite alive and they will be in their compressed cities while the elite get to enjoy the great outdoors without the sweaty masses.

And I am sorry my verbiage annoys you at times, but I have had to deal with these idiots for so long now that my tolerance levels are low...very, very low.

They don't care about people, they care about the pretense of caring about people.

Case in point: They will support any humanitarian mission you can name, but will at the same time support every bit of constrictive regulation on anything labeled "for the planet" even though it will cause hardship, disease, or even death for millions in 3rd world countries.

It's sick..

 

[Foxfyre]

Fox -

I find the logic in your post very difficult to follow - where on this forum do you see people recommending we all give up our air con or lights?

Can you post some links to those quotes?

Because it seems to me that 90% of these threads is about establishing the science behind climate changes science without going too much in to possible solutions, and the other 10% is about new technologies.

For all of the talk about alarmism from scientists - suggesting we will all need to live without lights if scientists get their way seems like some fairly extreme alarmism to me!

And I simply don't understand those who want to put all the power to do that in the hands of people who have demonstrated already that they don't like us much, won't hesitate to control us even more than they already do, and who have given us no reassurance that they have our best interests at heart.

Who do you mean?

I have absolutely no idea what you are getting at here.

Saigon, you don't follow my logic because you seem to have a great deal of difficulty in reading comprehension. In no place have I said anybody has proposed giving up our electrical conveniences. In fact, I was pretty specific that nobody is going to do that.

And in answer to your last question, from what I have read and observed, almost all, if not all, scientists who are pushing the AGW theory as a serious problem are ALL receiving money from governments or organizations who want that to be the conclusion. You don't find ANY of those governments or organizations appreciating or applauding scientific studies that do not support the AGW models being used to justify policy.

And the policy being pushed is to restrict the liberties, choices, options, and opportunities of the people which in turn increases the power and ability to direct government's own self interests. If government is successful in squelching or marginalizing anything that doesn't fit the ordered propaganda, and can sufficiently scare and convince enough gullible people, it can increase its power until it can do anything to us it wants.

And there are scientists more than willing to compromise their personal integrity and veracity in order to be able to keep the grant monies pouring in. Some have admitted it as has been posted here and in other environmental threads at USMB and all over the internet.

Which begs the question. If that grant money dried up, and scientists weren't being handsomely paid to be AGW alarmists, I really wonder how much scientific consensus there would be in favor of AGW?

I don't believe I have run across a climate scientists who is NOT receiving AGW grant monies who supports the AGW theory without serious reservations.

 

[Saigon]

Foxfyre -

I think my reading comprehension is fairly good, actually.

And since I'm pretty darn sure they don't plan to give up their cars, refrigerators, air conditioners, electric lights, television sets, etc. etc. etc. etc., the idea that we are seriously going to reverse climate change by taking away people's liberties, choices, freedoms, and options is simply absurd.

WHO is asking for people to give up their appliances? Links?

scientists who are pushing the AGW theory as a serious problem are ALL receiving money from governments or organizations who want that to be the conclusion. You don't find ANY of those governments or organizations appreciating or applauding scientific studies that do not support the AGW models being used to justify policy.

I can tell you with 100% certainity that this is not true, because it is actually impossible.

Most climate research in Europe is conducted by universities - and universities here operate according to a kind of anti-political interference mandate that means that the scientists themselves decide what to research and when and how. Their funding is in no way linked to this, as universities are funded with a single grant - so that research is not funded on a dodgy per-project basis.

The outcome being that no politician can "buy" conveniant research. It's simply not possible. (btw. My wife is a researcher at a university, though not in sciences)

 

[Foxfyre]

Foxfyre -

I think my reading comprehension is fairly good, actually.

And since I'm pretty darn sure they don't plan to give up their cars, refrigerators, air conditioners, electric lights, television sets, etc. etc. etc. etc., the idea that we are seriously going to reverse climate change by taking away people's liberties, choices, freedoms, and options is simply absurd.

WHO is asking for people to give up their appliances? Links?

scientists who are pushing the AGW theory as a serious problem are ALL receiving money from governments or organizations who want that to be the conclusion. You don't find ANY of those governments or organizations appreciating or applauding scientific studies that do not support the AGW models being used to justify policy.

I can tell you with 100% certainity that this is not true, because it is actually impossible.

Most climate research in Europe is conducted by universities - and universities here operate according to a kind of anti-political interference mandate that means that the scientists themselves decide what to research and when and how. Their funding is in no way linked to this, as universities are funded with a single grant - so that research is not funded on a dodgy per-project basis.

The outcome being that no politician can "buy" conveniant research. It's simply not possible. (btw. My wife is a researcher at a university, though not in sciences)

Where did I say anybody is asking anybody to give up their appliances? My statement says nobody is going to do that. Two different things. Clue: reading into statements what is not there is a problem with reading comprehension.

Ah, you think the $55 million dollar NASA grant the University of Central Florida received just last month for a climate change project just materialized out of thin air? $55 Million Grant Makes UCF, Florida History ? UCF Today

And that is just one of hundreds of such grants going to universities all over the country--at least those willing to be on record as supporting the AGW theory. Remember we are are in a deep recession and the government is borrowing billions every single day just to pay the everybody bills. But our government, along with many others, really REALLY wants the power of cap and trade which will be one of the single greatest assaults on our individual liberties ever imposed by our government.

Where did you think universities get the money to do the studies? But any university who produces findings inconsistent with the government point of view finds grant monies pretty difficult to come by. Or so I have read. Or so I have been told by acquaintances affiliated with our local institutions of higher learning.

If you really believe that university studies are untainted by government pressures or pressures from organizations who work as surrogates for government initiatives, you really need to get out more and I still have a nice assortment of bridges to sell.

I vividly recall working as a research assistant for a professor working on a poverty study project awhile back. She was being funded with a government grant. I did some damn good work and came up with some very credible and important statistics on the subject. She didn't use it. I had to ask why. What was wrong with it? Nothing, she said. But if I include that, I'll never get another grant. Sorry.

That was my Lesson #1 in the bogus research that is classified as credible studies these days. There have been other lessons.

 

[Foxfyre]

That is simply absurd. Please back it up with links.

He won't. He won't back up anything. He has swallowed the assigned talking points hook, line, and sinker, couldn't explain most of them in his own words if he had to, and if he does post something other than his silly accusations, unsubstantiated statements, and insults to the rest of us, it is something cut and pasted from an AGW alarmist site with absolutely nothing to support it from any credible site.

And hell, I still don't know if humankind is seriously affecting the climate and I keep an open mind. But I sure as hell know they won't fix it by tightening the screws of those countries that are already doing a good job of controlling greenhouse gasses while they give everybody else on the planet a pass. And since I'm pretty darn sure they don't plan to give up their cars, refrigerators, air conditioners, electric lights, television sets, etc. etc. etc. etc., the idea that we are seriously going to reverse climate change by taking away people's liberties, choices, freedoms, and options is simply absurd.

And I simply don't understand those who want to put all the power to do that in the hands of people who have demonstrated already that they don't like us much, won't hesitate to control us even more than they already do, and who have given us no reassurance that they have our best interests at heart.

They don't like ANYBODY Foxy. Having dealt with these folks for as long as I have I can safely assure you that people are the lowest critter on the care meter. They would happily kill everyone in India to save 3,600 tigers. On the other hand I've shown them how you can save both but they don't care to hear it.

Some are better than others but in the end they really do want the human race to be cut down to around a 100 million or so to run the machinery that keeps the elite alive and they will be in their compressed cities while the elite get to enjoy the great outdoors without the sweaty masses.

And I am sorry my verbiage annoys you at times, but I have had to deal with these idiots for so long now that my tolerance levels are low...very, very low.

LOL, not to worry re your verbiage. It doesn't annoy me much, and I'll take that little bit of annoyance to get the really good research you do.

But you are right of course. The pro-AGW people, the hard core militant environmentalists, etc. would impoverish their own grandmothers in favor of artificially protecting some endangered beetle or a minnow they think is one of a kind. They don't give a sh*t about multitudes of people living in abject poverty and misery while they focus on what kind of light bulb the rest of us use.

It never occurs to them that the most affluent of people are the ones who are most environmentally sensistive and protective and maybe, just maybe, helping people become more affluent is the best way to protect the environment.

And it never occurs to them that the very scientists who are putting out the most alarming studies and information don't seem alarmed enough to alter their own lifestyles. You don't see those who would take away our liberties, choices, options, and opportunities altering their own lifestyles in a way that suggests they give a damn about climate change.

It never occurs to them that the stated motives of those holding the power might possibly be suspect.

 

[westwall]

He won't. He won't back up anything. He has swallowed the assigned talking points hook, line, and sinker, couldn't explain most of them in his own words if he had to, and if he does post something other than his silly accusations, unsubstantiated statements, and insults to the rest of us, it is something cut and pasted from an AGW alarmist site with absolutely nothing to support it from any credible site.

And hell, I still don't know if humankind is seriously affecting the climate and I keep an open mind. But I sure as hell know they won't fix it by tightening the screws of those countries that are already doing a good job of controlling greenhouse gasses while they give everybody else on the planet a pass. And since I'm pretty darn sure they don't plan to give up their cars, refrigerators, air conditioners, electric lights, television sets, etc. etc. etc. etc., the idea that we are seriously going to reverse climate change by taking away people's liberties, choices, freedoms, and options is simply absurd.

And I simply don't understand those who want to put all the power to do that in the hands of people who have demonstrated already that they don't like us much, won't hesitate to control us even more than they already do, and who have given us no reassurance that they have our best interests at heart.

They don't like ANYBODY Foxy. Having dealt with these folks for as long as I have I can safely assure you that people are the lowest critter on the care meter. They would happily kill everyone in India to save 3,600 tigers. On the other hand I've shown them how you can save both but they don't care to hear it.

Some are better than others but in the end they really do want the human race to be cut down to around a 100 million or so to run the machinery that keeps the elite alive and they will be in their compressed cities while the elite get to enjoy the great outdoors without the sweaty masses.

And I am sorry my verbiage annoys you at times, but I have had to deal with these idiots for so long now that my tolerance levels are low...very, very low.

LOL, not to worry re your verbiage. It doesn't annoy me much, and I'll take that little bit of annoyance to get the really good research you do.

But you are right of course. The pro-AGW people, the hard core militant environmentalists, etc. would impoverish their own grandmothers in favor of artificially protecting some endangered beetle or a minnow they think is one of a kind. They don't give a sh*t about multitudes of people living in abject poverty and misery while they focus on what kind of light bulb the rest of us use.

It never occurs to them that the most affluent of people are the ones who are most environmentally sensistive and protective and maybe, just maybe, helping people become more affluent is the best way to protect the environment.

And it never occurs to them that the very scientists who are putting out the most alarming studies and information don't seem alarmed enough to alter their own lifestyles. You don't see those who would take away our liberties, choices, options, and opportunities altering their own lifestyles in a way that suggests they give a damn about climate change.

It never occurs to them that the stated motives of those holding the power might possibly be suspect.

What you say is absolutely true except for the propagandists like saggy et al. They KNOW what they are spewing is crap. They simply don't care so long as it furthers their political goals. They are scum.

 

[polarbear]

Where did I say anybody is asking anybody to give up their appliances? My statement says nobody is going to do that. Two different things. Clue: reading into statements what is not there is a problem with reading comprehension.

You can`t reason with fence posts like "Saigon" etc.
Fact is there was legislation pending that amounts to just that.
Kommentar: Es ist falsch, das Verbot für Nachtspeicher-Öfen aufzuheben - SPIEGEL ONLINE

Laufzeitverlängerung für Stromfresser: Der Nachtspeicher-Irrsinn

Translation:
An extension was granted for home owner`s "power eating Nachtspeicher"
This is a Nachtspeicher heating system:

When Germany`s "renewable energy" day time use hydro rates went through the roof many people installed these systems which heat a bunch of bricks at night when the rates are lower....hoping that there was enough heat stored for daytime use and that the winters stay mild...a hope that we know was dashed.
Along came Greenpeace and pushed for legislation to ban these systems because they draw power during the time when there is no solar power available.
Since power generated by wind turbines is too erratic Germans must now install "smart meters" which disable water heaters, cloth driers, washing machines etc. Unlike the night heating systems which the greens want to ban outright the rest of the appliances can only be operated when wind & solar lets you have the power.
If you don`t install a smart meter, soon you will pay a huge fine in Germany if your house exceeds a 2 KVA peak demand .
My hot water tank is wired for 220 and draws 10 amps, so each time the thermostat calls for power I would be racking up penalties...if I would live in Germany.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

Actually, if you did look at the science, you would see that much of it is based on observational data on increases in both CO2 and temperature.

This is what you miss out on by not looking at the evidence.

There doesn't exist a single piece of empirical evidence that more CO2 in the atmosphere causes more waming...

The fact is, siagon, that I do look at the science. The difference between me and you is that I am able to separate actual science from pseudoscientific propaganda. That is evidenced by the fact that I know there is no observed, measured, emprirical evidence that more CO2 in the atmosphere equals more warming while you belive that such evidence exists when the only thing that exists is the output of computer models and an assumption that it is true when no real evidence exists to support the assumption.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

Actually, if you did look at the science, you would see that much of it is based on observational data on increases in both CO2 and temperature.

This is what you miss out on by not looking at the evidence.

Can't man up and quote anybody yet I see... You're supposed to a journalist living in Finland, yet have no concept of why proper quoting is important???

He also is unable to differentiate between corelation and causation and seems completely oblivious to the fact that ice cores show that CO2 levels follow temperature.

 

[polarbear]

SSDD -

Actually, if you did look at the science, you would see that much of it is based on observational data on increases in both CO2 and temperature.

This is what you miss out on by not looking at the evidence.

Can't man up and quote anybody yet I see... You're supposed to a journalist living in Finland, yet have no concept of why proper quoting is important???

He also is unable to differentiate between corelation and causation and seems completely oblivious to the fact that ice cores show that CO2 levels follow temperature.

Yeah but like the other "science expert" who took a Navy course in locker repair and makes ink molecules with "water chemistry" he can Google up the black body radiation of 273 K ice cubes and argue that the ice box gets warmer the more ice cubes you put in it because they radiate at each other in there, like in the white "mamooth photon" box. The more 273 K ice cubes, the more IR photons are buzzing around inside the icebox...they keep saying it`s simple logic but don`t realize that it`s meant for simple people, as in "Roy`s Yes Virginia, thermodynamics...." for dummies
There was an interesting article about Hansen today in Germany`s lefty "Der Spiegel".
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/...sen-kritisiert-kanadas-oelsande-a-900102.html

Klimaforscher James Hansen: Die Nervensäge

Mit seinen Thesen verschreckt er auch manche Umweltschützer.

Translation:
It`s a lengthy article covering Hansen`s visit to Germany to lobby against Canada`s oil sands. Hansen`s exaggerations have even pissed off the German green movement who fear loosing credibility because of Hansen`s outlandish thesis.
This time "Der Spiegel`s" fact checkers have published how many NASA scientists had complained about Hansen`s wild exaggerations and published them with the NASA logo....and then was reprimanded by the Goddard Spacr Institute. That was just prior to when Hansen alleged in 2006 that G.W. Bush was trying to "silence" him and soon after quit his job at NASA.
Now he is planning to write a book called "Sophie`s Planet" which consists mostly of the letters he wrote to his grandchild "explaining" AGW...complementing Spencer`s "Yes Virginia," thermodynamics by dummies for dummies

 

[gslack]

Foxfyre -

I think my reading comprehension is fairly good, actually.

And since I'm pretty darn sure they don't plan to give up their cars, refrigerators, air conditioners, electric lights, television sets, etc. etc. etc. etc., the idea that we are seriously going to reverse climate change by taking away people's liberties, choices, freedoms, and options is simply absurd.

WHO is asking for people to give up their appliances? Links?

scientists who are pushing the AGW theory as a serious problem are ALL receiving money from governments or organizations who want that to be the conclusion. You don't find ANY of those governments or organizations appreciating or applauding scientific studies that do not support the AGW models being used to justify policy.

I can tell you with 100% certainity that this is not true, because it is actually impossible.

Most climate research in Europe is conducted by universities - and universities here operate according to a kind of anti-political interference mandate that means that the scientists themselves decide what to research and when and how. Their funding is in no way linked to this, as universities are funded with a single grant - so that research is not funded on a dodgy per-project basis.

The outcome being that no politician can "buy" conveniant research. It's simply not possible. (btw. My wife is a researcher at a university, though not in sciences)

Where did I say anybody is asking anybody to give up their appliances? My statement says nobody is going to do that. Two different things. Clue: reading into statements what is not there is a problem with reading comprehension.

Ah, you think the $55 million dollar NASA grant the University of Central Florida received just last month for a climate change project just materialized out of thin air? $55 Million Grant Makes UCF, Florida History ? UCF Today

And that is just one of hundreds of such grants going to universities all over the country--at least those willing to be on record as supporting the AGW theory. Remember we are are in a deep recession and the government is borrowing billions every single day just to pay the everybody bills. But our government, along with many others, really REALLY wants the power of cap and trade which will be one of the single greatest assaults on our individual liberties ever imposed by our government.

Where did you think universities get the money to do the studies? But any university who produces findings inconsistent with the government point of view finds grant monies pretty difficult to come by. Or so I have read. Or so I have been told by acquaintances affiliated with our local institutions of higher learning.

If you really believe that university studies are untainted by government pressures or pressures from organizations who work as surrogates for government initiatives, you really need to get out more and I still have a nice assortment of bridges to sell.

I vividly recall working as a research assistant for a professor working on a poverty study project awhile back. She was being funded with a government grant. I did some damn good work and came up with some very credible and important statistics on the subject. She didn't use it. I had to ask why. What was wrong with it? Nothing, she said. But if I include that, I'll never get another grant. Sorry.

That was my Lesson #1 in the bogus research that is classified as credible studies these days. There have been other lessons.

Fox, he deliberately doesn't quote you or quote cherry -picked sentences so he can put words in your mouth and effectively make up your argument as he goes. It's not a style thing, it's deliberate obfuscation and misrepresentation. I have called him on it time and again, and so far he seems to get a free pass on it here.

Best to just call him on it when you see it, and prepare to spend as much time clarifying your true position as debating his..

 

[Foxfyre]

Foxfyre -

I think my reading comprehension is fairly good, actually.



WHO is asking for people to give up their appliances? Links?



I can tell you with 100% certainity that this is not true, because it is actually impossible.

Most climate research in Europe is conducted by universities - and universities here operate according to a kind of anti-political interference mandate that means that the scientists themselves decide what to research and when and how. Their funding is in no way linked to this, as universities are funded with a single grant - so that research is not funded on a dodgy per-project basis.

The outcome being that no politician can "buy" conveniant research. It's simply not possible. (btw. My wife is a researcher at a university, though not in sciences)

Where did I say anybody is asking anybody to give up their appliances? My statement says nobody is going to do that. Two different things. Clue: reading into statements what is not there is a problem with reading comprehension.

Ah, you think the $55 million dollar NASA grant the University of Central Florida received just last month for a climate change project just materialized out of thin air? $55 Million Grant Makes UCF, Florida History ? UCF Today

And that is just one of hundreds of such grants going to universities all over the country--at least those willing to be on record as supporting the AGW theory. Remember we are are in a deep recession and the government is borrowing billions every single day just to pay the everybody bills. But our government, along with many others, really REALLY wants the power of cap and trade which will be one of the single greatest assaults on our individual liberties ever imposed by our government.

Where did you think universities get the money to do the studies? But any university who produces findings inconsistent with the government point of view finds grant monies pretty difficult to come by. Or so I have read. Or so I have been told by acquaintances affiliated with our local institutions of higher learning.

If you really believe that university studies are untainted by government pressures or pressures from organizations who work as surrogates for government initiatives, you really need to get out more and I still have a nice assortment of bridges to sell.

I vividly recall working as a research assistant for a professor working on a poverty study project awhile back. She was being funded with a government grant. I did some damn good work and came up with some very credible and important statistics on the subject. She didn't use it. I had to ask why. What was wrong with it? Nothing, she said. But if I include that, I'll never get another grant. Sorry.

That was my Lesson #1 in the bogus research that is classified as credible studies these days. There have been other lessons.

Fox, he deliberately doesn't quote you or quote cherry -picked sentences so he can put words in your mouth and effectively make up your argument as he goes. It's not a style thing, it's deliberate obfuscation and misrepresentation. I have called him on it time and again, and so far he seems to get a free pass on it here.

Best to just call him on it when you see it, and prepare to spend as much time clarifying your true position as debating his..

You're probably right. But he gives us such wonderful lead ins to get good information out there. I know that isn't what he's shooting for. But give him a pass? Naw. The best way to deal with his schtick is to put the accurate information up. And so far he hasn't been able to counter it with anything that doesn't make him look pretty clueless so far as AGW and climate science goes.

 

[Saigon]

Foxfyre -

Please try and answer questions.

1)

And I simply don't understand those who want to put all the power to do that in the hands of people who have demonstrated already that they don't like us much, won't hesitate to control us even more than they already do, and who have given us no reassurance that they have our best interests at heart

.

Who do you mean?

2.

And since I'm pretty darn sure they don't plan to give up their cars, refrigerators, air conditioners, electric lights, television sets, etc. etc. etc. etc., the idea that we are seriously going to reverse climate change by taking away people's liberties, choices, freedoms, and options is simply absurd.

Who is asking you to?

I explained earlier exactly why we know that European university research is not corrupted. Rather than address any of the points I raised, you simply repeated your own speech that all US university research is corrupt.

Can you explain why you did not understand or accept my explanation? You can check the details anywhere and prove that it is entirely true.