re: What are your reasons for believing climate change is "a hoax"

quote:

---

So long as you admit that your position requires belief in a conspiracy theory

---

A+ troll btw.

Muhhhhh climate change. Reeeeee

quote:

---

If I studied climate science and got my PhD from a top school in the nation......then, 5 years later, said, "I hypothesize that predictions about Global Warming are incorrect based on XYZ.........I want to study to see if XYZ is right".

What are the odds of me receiving funding from ANY source other than an obviously agenda driven source to check on my hypothesis?

---

That last line hints to one of the biggest problems with the 'science' of climate change as it exists today.

There are no unbiased funding sources. Energy companies have a large amount of money at stake, which is why they seem to fund only studies that say man-made climate change is a hoax.

As I stated in a previous post, the believers refuse to acknowledge that government-funded studies are also tainted. Let's face it, governments have far more at stake to 'prove' man-made climate change to be a real thing. They gain/keep more power as people cede it to them to protect against the evils of climate change.

I think this bears repeating until answered.

quote:

---

Here's a simple question for the OP.

If I studied climate science and got my PhD from a top school in the nation......then, 5 years later, said, "I hypothesize that predictions about Global Warming are incorrect based on XYZ.........I want to study to see if XYZ is right".

What are the odds of me receiving funding from ANY source other than an obviously agenda driven source to check on my hypothesis?

When you answer that honestly, you know the problem

---

The science behind it isn't a hoax, the fear mongering is.

quote:

---

As I stated in a previous post, the believers refuse to acknowledge that government-funded studies are also tainted. Let's face it, governments have far more at stake to 'prove' man-made climate change to be a real thing. They gain/keep more power as people cede it to them to protect against the evils of climate change.

---

They refuse to acknowledge that there's nothing unique about Scientists in terms of their humanity and the effects of economics.

If you fund something, to the exclusion of all else, you'll tend to get a whole lot of what you funded. In fact, that NOT happening is virtually unheard of.

This isn't even unique to the climate discussion. It's become a default approach for the left.

They're going it in MSM now. Used to be, they'd cover shite in a biased manner. But NOW, there's shite they literally don't cover at all. Like it didn't even happen.

So then, the ONLY places that cover it are non-MSM and they simply respond, "welp, not on MSM.....not credible".

Which MIGHT carry some weight except you have shite not even being talked about while there are still dozens of "some say" type articles out there and hell, we find out if a guy gets two scoops or not or if he's afraid of stairs.

It's a way to rig thought of the masses who, like Pman, possess no skill of their own to bring to bear on the subject.

quote:

---

quote:
Here's a simple question for the OP.

If I studied climate science and got my PhD from a top school in the nation......then, 5 years later, said, "I hypothesize that predictions about Global Warming are incorrect based on XYZ.........I want to study to see if XYZ is right".

What are the odds of me receiving funding from ANY source other than an obviously agenda driven source to check on my hypothesis?

When you answer that honestly, you know the problem

---

The answer is you don't really understand how the scientific method works.

What would happen? Other scientists would apply for grants from the public or private sector to confirm or deny the findings. And the science money cycle would continue.

Here's a news flash. Most scientist don't care WHERE their money is coming from, so long as folks keep giving them "free" money to do research. It just so happens that most of the money (needed for climate science) comes from the government, because for alot of these studies, they need mucho $$$ to be able to do the sorts of experiments that are needed to answer the questions.

But it goes farther than that. Even if a study isn't a climate change study per se, there are still lots of smaller studies from a plethora of fields that also point to what is happening. I'm talking wide ranging fields like Animal behavior, microbiology, marine biology, ecology, population genetics, oceanography, geology, epidemiology, forestry, limnology and the list goes on. When you start seeing so many studies in so many fields all pointing in the same direction, the answer becomes clear.

But for about the 3rd or 4th time, I won't use the term "Climate change" or "man induced climate change". I think both sides agree something is happening. It's the degree to which it's happening and the cause that really is the crux of the issue from most people.

And that's too bad. As I said before, does causation really matter? Shouldn't we be worrying about the IMPACT regardless of cause? If large parts of Miami or New York or Washington go underwater do we really care about the cause or do we care about how we can mitigate the effects?

quote:

---

This is of course completely false

---

Nope

quote:

---

I've been civil with several people here

---

Dude. I posted 2 or 3 multi-pragraph multi point responses and you hit me with a 2 liner lumped in with dullards inside of 2 responses.

Read your own shite man.

quote:

---

And some people by their own words have willingly thrown themselves into group 2 and are proud of their inclusion in that group

---

Great. Then, you lumped the rest in with them.............

quote:

---

The answer is you don't really understand how the scientific method works.

---

What on fricking Earth does my question have to do with the "Scientific Method"?

Don't use terms you don't understand to throw darts man.

Then you went on about 4 paragraphs completely not even addressing my question.

Wanna take another crack?

quote:

---

What on fricking Earth does my question have to do with the "Scientific Method"?

---

Well if you don't understand how it works you won't understand the answer to this question either