It really is all about the money

[westwall]

I found this little article intersting to say the least. The final point is the one I found to be most relevant,

Tripling the research budget is judged to reduce future uncertainty, but not in direct proportion to the increased level of funding,”

So for an additional 300 BILLION dollars all they can do is reduce the future uncertainty. Wow, and old fraud has the audacity to argue about the reletive skills of scientists. 300 BILLION bucks gets you basically nothing.

Sounds like a good deal to........the scientists milking the public tit!


Why Climate Stumps Even the Brightest Scientists - Green Blog - NYTimes.com

 

[Old Rocks]

Sounds like typical Luddite bullshit from a known bullshitter.

 

[westwall]

Sounds like typical Luddite bullshit from a known bullshitter.

PROVE IT little boy!

 

[Old Rocks]

Nowhere in this article is there a statement requesting 300 billion dollars for research. In fact, we have spent nowhere near 300 billion in the past on climate research.

You are simply talking out of your ass again, and making up lies as you go along. Really pathetic for someone that is supposed to be an adult, and claims to be a university graduate. Given the rest of your claims, a GED would be stretching it a bit.

Why Climate Stumps Even the Brightest Scientists - Green Blog - NYTimes.com

Working climate scientists are almost unanimous in their view that the earth is slowly warming up and that human activity, particularly the combustion of fossil fuels, is the primary cause. But beneath that surface unanimity, predictions vary about how much the planet will warm in the future because of rising greenhouse gases. Scientists’ best guesses range from mild warming, to which the planet and its people might adapt easily, to temperature increases so extreme that life on earth would be radically altered.


To get a better sense of how much uncertainty exists among top experts, and why, a group of researchers from Canada, Britain and the United States conducted in-depth interviews with 14 of the world’s leading climate scientists. They used a formal method called expert elicitation that is designed to explore the factors that are shaping experts’ views on a topic. The results are described in a new paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Well, you're half right. For the scientists, it's about the money. Nothing more complex that the old poli sci saw, "Where you stand (on an issue), depends on where you sit" (typically your job).

In the case of scientists, they get more money as long as they keep "proving" this bullshit AGW. Simple math there. They'll even make it up and cook the books if they have to.

For the Pols, it's even more straight-forward. They want control. Paying scientists to "create" overwhelming evidence that no one should question, is an easy thing when the end result is more control over ever fucking thing that moves on the planet. Nice pay-off for them. For the rest of us, we just get to suffer for the rest of our lives. For Old Stupid Stones, he's just to dumb to know what he's doing.

 

[westwall]

Nowhere in this article is there a statement requesting 300 billion dollars for research. In fact, we have spent nowhere near 300 billion in the past on climate research.

You are simply talking out of your ass again, and making up lies as you go along. Really pathetic for someone that is supposed to be an adult, and claims to be a university graduate. Given the rest of your claims, a GED would be stretching it a bit.

Why Climate Stumps Even the Brightest Scientists - Green Blog - NYTimes.com

Working climate scientists are almost unanimous in their view that the earth is slowly warming up and that human activity, particularly the combustion of fossil fuels, is the primary cause. But beneath that surface unanimity, predictions vary about how much the planet will warm in the future because of rising greenhouse gases. Scientists’ best guesses range from mild warming, to which the planet and its people might adapt easily, to temperature increases so extreme that life on earth would be radically altered.


To get a better sense of how much uncertainty exists among top experts, and why, a group of researchers from Canada, Britain and the United States conducted in-depth interviews with 14 of the world’s leading climate scientists. They used a formal method called expert elicitation that is designed to explore the factors that are shaping experts’ views on a topic. The results are described in a new paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Really?

Maybe you forgot this? And trippling that number gets us 300 billion or did I miss something?

Quadrant Online - The science of deceit

 

[Old Rocks]

Come on, Walleyes, another silly blog. How about something from real scientists, not political hacks.

 

[editec]

SCience is informning us about something we don't want to hear.

Some of us are adult enough to accept that such things happen.

Others of us want to kill the messenger.

Human nature, I guess.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, you're half right. For the scientists, it's about the money. Nothing more complex that the old poli sci saw, "Where you stand (on an issue), depends on where you sit" (typically your job).

In the case of scientists, they get more money as long as they keep "proving" this bullshit AGW. Simple math there. They'll even make it up and cook the books if they have to.

For the Pols, it's even more straight-forward. They want control. Paying scientists to "create" overwhelming evidence that no one should question, is an easy thing when the end result is more control over ever fucking thing that moves on the planet. Nice pay-off for them. For the rest of us, we just get to suffer for the rest of our lives. For Old Stupid Stones, he's just to dumb to know what he's doing.

Make sure you keep enough tinfoil on hand for your hats.

 

[westwall]

Come on, Walleyes, another silly blog. How about something from real scientists, not political hacks.

Kind of the pot calling the kettle black there old fraud...don't you think?

 

[westwall]

SCience is informning us about something we don't want to hear.

Some of us are adult enough to accept that such things happen.

Others of us want to kill the messenger.

Human nature, I guess.

Really?

Please show us factual data that has not been contaminated by lost raw data, "value added" data and data that has simply been pulled out of their asses. So far the AGW proponents have a balefully poor record of actually conducting science. They are very good at politics, but piss poor at science.