Because we are not free.
Printable View
Do you believe that if man had never existed, that climate change would not be taking place?
Also, if you were a scientist, and the only way to get funding was to skew the results to meet a certain narrative, would you do it?
https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/...y-henry-payne/
Also an interesting read...https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/in...2-10cf6d8d08dfQuote:
Indeed, experts in the research community say that it is much more difficult for some of the top climate scientists — Soon, Roger Pielke Jr., the CATO Institute’s Patrick Michaels, MIT’s now-retired Richard Lindzen — to get funding for their work because they do not embrace the global-warming fearmongering favored by the government-funded climate establishment.
“Soon’s integrity in the scientific community shines out,” says Ebell. “He has foregone his own career advancement to advance scientific truth. If he had only mouthed establishment platitudes, he could’ve been named to head a big university [research center] like Michael Mann.”
Mann is the controversial director of Pennsylvania State’s Earth System Science Center. He was at the center of the 2009 Climategate scandal, in which e-mails were uncovered from climatologists discussing how to skew scientific evidence and blackball experts who don’t agree with them.
Climates have a cyclical nature about them on Earth. Change is constant... ex Milankovitch Cycles. What's different about the Anthropocene is the RATE of change.
I am a scientist by training although not by profession. And no - I would not do that nor would anyone that I know. Why would they do that? They have too much to lose. Legit scientific work is peer-reviewed and reproducible.
Because they would lose their funding. I'm guessing you didn't read the rest.
The founder of the Weather Channel said this on CNN
Quote:
“CNN has taken a very strong position on global warming, that it is a consensus,” he said. “Well, there is no consensus in science. Science isn’t a vote, science is about facts.”
“And if you get down to the hard, cold facts, there’s no question about it: Climate change is not happening, there is no significant, man-made global warming now, there hasn’t been any in the past, and there’s no reason to expect any in the future. There’s a whole lot of baloney.”
Coleman said climate change has become part of the Democratic Party platform, adding that he regretted that the issue has become “political instead of scientific.”
“But the science is on my side,” he declared.
Challenged on the assertion that “97 percent of climate scientists” are in agreement on the issue, Coleman charged that the figure was “manipulated.”
Since the government only funds scientists who put out results “supporting the global warming hypothesis,” he claimed, “they don’t have any choice.”
“If you’re going to get the money, you’ve got to support their position. Therefore 97 percent of the scientific reports published support global warming. Why? Because those are the ones the government pays for and that’s where the money is.”
The American Meteorological Society, working with experts at George Mason University and Yale University, emailed all AMS members for whom the AMS had a mailing address (excluding associate members and student members) and asked them to fill out an online survey on global warming. More than 1,800 AMS meteorologists filled out the survey, providing a highly representative view of scientists with meteorological, climatological, and atmospheric science expertise.
The central question in the survey consisted of two parts: “Is global warming happening? If so, what is its cause?” Answer options were:
Yes: Mostly human
Yes: Equally human and natural
Yes: Mostly natural
Yes: Insufficient evidence [to determine cause]
Yes: Don’t know cause
Don’t know if global warming is happening
Global warming is not happening
Just 52 percent of survey respondents answered Yes: Mostly human. The other 48 percent either questioned whether global warming is happening or would not ascribe human activity as the primary cause.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/bams/ar...rming-A-Survey
There was an Ice Age, the Earth warmed up to thaw it out, and then just didn't stop warming? I think mankind needs to feel like they're in control of things even when they're not.
Al Gore fucked up the climate change theory for me. It's easy to preach to people about how they should live, but it'd help if he practiced what he preached.
Should everyone buy hybrid or electric cars? Would it help? Should people stop eating meat to reduce the size of farms? Would this lead to the extinction of cattle and pigs?
I've considered buying an electric car. Not to change the climate, but because used low mileage ones are cheap and my daily commute is only about 8 miles round trip.
Research conducted to date with meteorologists and other atmospheric scientists has shown that they are not unanimous in their views of climate change. In a survey of Earth scientists, Doran and Zimmerman (2009) found that, while a majority of meteorologists surveyed are convinced humans have contributed to global warming (GW; 64%), this was a substantially smaller majority than that found among all Earth scientists (82%). Another survey, by Farnsworth and Lichter (2009), found that 83% of meteorologists surveyed were convinced human-induced climate change is occurring, again a smaller majority than among experts in related areas, such as ocean sciences (91%) and geophysics (88%).
I took a quantitative hydro class taught by Eric Small at CU Boulder a few years ago. He is, or was, a member of the IPCC and a tenured CU professor. He started the first lecture by poking fun at Al Gore for the 1st half hour.