Sorry, but Principia-Scientific, the source of the article, is a journal created solely to discredit climate change. I'm not saying that they right or wrong in this case, but I wouldn't claim victory until a more reputable publications like Scientific American weighs in. And no I don't believe that 99% of all science climatologists are deliberately fudging their data just so they can get their hands on all them government grant money, when they could make a lot more money taking the opposite position.

3 ...

Report Post

Posted by kingbob

Sorrento, LA

Member since Nov 2010

67309 posts

Posted on 1/27/14 at 6:54 pm to Tyrusrex

It's not just the grant money. It's their ability to get published in scientific journals, it's their jobs in academia, it's their prestige. A climatologist to come out as a skeptic of AGW would be like the head of the Southern Baptist Convention coming out of the closet as a gay Muslim. They would lose their credibility, funding, reputation, and career. It's a big deal.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by willthezombie

the graveyard

Member since Dec 2013

1546 posts

Posted on 1/27/14 at 7:09 pm to Tyrusrex

quote:
Sorry, but Principia-Scientific, the source of the article, is a journal created solely to discredit climate change. I'm not saying that they right or wrong in this case, but I wouldn't claim victory until a more reputable publications like Scientific American weighs in.

I would like to see that too, but alot of the respected science journals have their head up their arse to take it up.

quote:
nd no I don't believe that 99% of all science climatologists are deliberately fudging their data just so they can get their hands on all them government grant money, when they could make a lot more money taking the opposite position.

Now granted this is just what one guy says, but one of my professors in grad school worked for the EPA for 3 years after he left the military. He said it is all bullshat and that everybody is just after $$$. He plan out said the numbers were fudged. End hijack

However I did google and this source is very biased and not respected or legit.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by gthog61

Irving, TX

Member since Nov 2009

71001 posts

Posted on 1/27/14 at 7:38 pm to Tyrusrex

quote:
a more reputable publications like Scientific American

They are in the tank for GW. They'll never weigh in on shite if it goes against what they push.

The "respected scientific community" is generally pro GW because they can make more money off it if there is a crisis, kind of like oil companies are generally pro drilling.

It's what they do for a living.

1 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board