Vaginas, Sea Level, and the Beginning of Reality

[Baldy]

Based on our understand about science so far, AGW is the best theory and until evidence arises invalidating many of the facts incorporated with the theory, it's our best guess in understanding what's happening in the climate.

AGW is nothing more than a vague hypothesis, and not even a scientific hypothesis at that.

[AZGrizFan]

Wrong. AGW apologists wouldn't admit a mistake if it hit them between the eyes with a 2x4. They just scream LOUDER (much like you).

Really? Because I'll admit that we don't have a precise idea about the repercussions of AGW, and I even granted Baldy the points he made about the size of emissions, and I'll continue to admit mistakes when I see them fit. You guys just aren't showing actual relevant facts, let alone facts that invalidate AGW theory

The fact is, the points you're bringing up are missing the scientific points that the AGW crowd is bringing up all together and you've failed to actually present a valid mistake and the attempts to do so actually expose your ignorance in the subject more than anything.

If you would look past the "go fuck yourself" comments and the comments that are essentially verbal facepalms, you'll see that 90% of what I'm posting is discussing the science. I'm not shouting over anyone. This is a message board, my substance speaks for itself. Compare that to you guys' posts' substance (if you really want to call it that) which are 50% miscellaneous facts that are irrelevant and miss the point and 50% just saying AGW is "wrong" or "just natural" without any other justification other than those words, and I'm pretty reasonable and scientific in comparison. As matter of fact the latter posts are provoking the former to depreciate into 90% substance as opposed to 100%

That's because most of us have real jobs we have to perform and don't have time to write white papers on every post.

And instead of asking us to "look past the "go fuck yourself" comments", howsabout you just not SAY "go fuck yourself". That approach makes you lose any shred of credibility you may have.

I'll leave you with this: follow the money.

[youngterrier]

Based on our understand about science so far, AGW is the best theory and until evidence arises invalidating many of the facts incorporated with the theory, it's our best guess in understanding what's happening in the climate.

AGW is nothing more than a vague hypothesis, and not even a scientific hypothesis at that.

That's the extent of your argument. Just words, no facts.

[youngterrier]

Really? Because I'll admit that we don't have a precise idea about the repercussions of AGW, and I even granted Baldy the points he made about the size of emissions, and I'll continue to admit mistakes when I see them fit. You guys just aren't showing actual relevant facts, let alone facts that invalidate AGW theory

The fact is, the points you're bringing up are missing the scientific points that the AGW crowd is bringing up all together and you've failed to actually present a valid mistake and the attempts to do so actually expose your ignorance in the subject more than anything.

If you would look past the "go fuck yourself" comments and the comments that are essentially verbal facepalms, you'll see that 90% of what I'm posting is discussing the science. I'm not shouting over anyone. This is a message board, my substance speaks for itself. Compare that to you guys' posts' substance (if you really want to call it that) which are 50% miscellaneous facts that are irrelevant and miss the point and 50% just saying AGW is "wrong" or "just natural" without any other justification other than those words, and I'm pretty reasonable and scientific in comparison. As matter of fact the latter posts are provoking the former to depreciate into 90% substance as opposed to 100%

That's because most of us have real jobs we have to perform and don't have time to write white papers on every post.

And instead of asking us to "look past the "go fuck yourself" comments", howsabout you just not SAY "go fuck yourself". That approach makes you lose any shred of credibility you may have.

I'll leave you with this: follow the money.

Yeah that's right, scientists will lose all of their funding if AGW is a scam......even though government funding for science programs will happen regardless of whether or not it is or not.....NASA, NSI, NHI, etc. That looks brilliant on the surface, but when you look past it it makes absolutely no sense. Compare that to the fact that fossil fuels are the most economic source of energy and a lot more people have more to lose by being told that it's bad for the environment.

If you're going to take a position in a discussion, it shouldn't be a "my feels" kind of argument. Use facts. You aren't doing it. The go fuck yourself comments are direct response to your ignorance and unwarranted condescension. When I do it, apparently I lose credibility, but when you do it (and present less facts) it doesn't? That makes no sense. I return the favor, and add facts, and yet I'm the bad guy? Terrible reasoning.

[Ibanez]

That's because most of us have real jobs we have to perform and don't have time to write white papers on every post.

And instead of asking us to "look past the "go fuck yourself" comments", howsabout you just not SAY "go fuck yourself". That approach makes you lose any shred of credibility you may have.

I'll leave you with this: follow the money.

Yeah that's right, scientists will lose all of their funding if AGW is a scam......even though government funding for science programs will happen regardless of whether or not it is or not.....NASA, NSI, NHI, etc. That looks brilliant on the surface, but when you look past it it makes absolutely no sense. Compare that to the fact that fossil fuels are the most economic source of energy and a lot more people have more to lose by being told that it's bad for the environment.

If you're going to take a position in a discussion, it shouldn't be a "my feels" kind of argument. Use facts. You aren't doing it. The go fuck yourself comments are direct response to your ignorance and unwarranted condescension. When I do it, apparently I lose credibility, but when you do it (and present less facts) it doesn't? That makes no sense. I return the favor, and add facts, and yet I'm the bad guy? Terrible reasoning.

Maybe if stopped telling people to "go fuck themselves" you'd be better received.

[AZGrizFan]

That's because most of us have real jobs we have to perform and don't have time to write white papers on every post.

And instead of asking us to "look past the "go fuck yourself" comments", howsabout you just not SAY "go fuck yourself". That approach makes you lose any shred of credibility you may have.

I'll leave you with this: follow the money.

Yeah that's right, scientists will lose all of their funding if AGW is a scam......even though government funding for science programs will happen regardless of whether or not it is or not.....NASA, NSI, NHI, etc. That looks brilliant on the surface, but when you look past it it makes absolutely no sense. Compare that to the fact that fossil fuels are the most economic source of energy and a lot more people have more to lose by being told that it's bad for the environment.

If you're going to take a position in a discussion, it shouldn't be a "my feels" kind of argument. Use facts. You aren't doing it. The go fuck yourself comments are direct response to your ignorance and unwarranted condescension. When I do it, apparently I lose credibility, but when you do it (and present less facts) it doesn't? That makes no sense. I return the favor, and add facts, and yet I'm the bad guy? Terrible reasoning.

Please find a post where I've told a poster to go fuck themselves.

I'll wait.

[youngterrier]

Yeah that's right, scientists will lose all of their funding if AGW is a scam......even though government funding for science programs will happen regardless of whether or not it is or not.....NASA, NSI, NHI, etc. That looks brilliant on the surface, but when you look past it it makes absolutely no sense. Compare that to the fact that fossil fuels are the most economic source of energy and a lot more people have more to lose by being told that it's bad for the environment.

If you're going to take a position in a discussion, it shouldn't be a "my feels" kind of argument. Use facts. You aren't doing it. The go fuck yourself comments are direct response to your ignorance and unwarranted condescension. When I do it, apparently I lose credibility, but when you do it (and present less facts) it doesn't? That makes no sense. I return the favor, and add facts, and yet I'm the bad guy? Terrible reasoning.

Maybe if stopped telling people to "go fuck themselves" you'd be better received.

meh, it was a response to being called an emotional wreck and belittled simply for the fact that I was younger and misunderstood one number (but even that misunderstanding didn't undermine I argument in the least bit). I was being well received in the first place, and continuously using "facts" to undermine their position wasn't enough apparently.

Look back at how this thread unfolded and you'll notice that lecturing me on the ethics of discourse is nonsensical when I didn't initiate it

[youngterrier]

Yeah that's right, scientists will lose all of their funding if AGW is a scam......even though government funding for science programs will happen regardless of whether or not it is or not.....NASA, NSI, NHI, etc. That looks brilliant on the surface, but when you look past it it makes absolutely no sense. Compare that to the fact that fossil fuels are the most economic source of energy and a lot more people have more to lose by being told that it's bad for the environment.

If you're going to take a position in a discussion, it shouldn't be a "my feels" kind of argument. Use facts. You aren't doing it. The go fuck yourself comments are direct response to your ignorance and unwarranted condescension. When I do it, apparently I lose credibility, but when you do it (and present less facts) it doesn't? That makes no sense. I return the favor, and add facts, and yet I'm the bad guy? Terrible reasoning.

Please find a post where I've told a poster to go fuck themselves.

I'll wait.

The fact that you guys are dwelling on one sentence of all my post and ignoring 99% of what I've said in order to undermine my position or credibility is laughable

[89Hen]

your ignorance and unwarranted condescension

That's rich coming from you.

[AZGrizFan]

Yeah that's right, scientists will lose all of their funding if AGW is a scam......even though government funding for science programs will happen regardless of whether or not it is or not.....NASA, NSI, NHI, etc. That looks brilliant on the surface, but when you look past it it makes absolutely no sense. Compare that to the fact that fossil fuels are the most economic source of energy and a lot more people have more to lose by being told that it's bad for the environment.

SCIENTISTS won't lose all their funding. AGW SCIENTISTS might. And while "people" may have a lot more to lose by being told it (fossil fuels) is bad for the environment, just look at the piles of money, YT. It's not rocket science. Some estimates: US Government has spent $79 BILLION on climate research, almost exclusively on scientists aiming to prove AGW theories. The US Gov't spends $10 million per DAY on climate research.

THis image is another example of the flawed argument AGAINST the money argument:


The huge 8,000 pound gorilla in the room this image is missing is: THE U.S. GOVERNMENT.

From the donk government's perspective: Proving AGW >> More environmental regulation >> more government control >> bigger government >> donk wet dream.

From the scientists' perspective: being a pro-AGW alarmist >> big fat government grant checks to continue research.

But for the creators of this image to imply (laughingly, I might add) that the oil and gas companies somehow have deeper pockets than the U.S. government--which literally has a license to print money--is comical. Which is why they have to leave the U.S. government OFF the image and hope its not noticed. And to somehow attempt to argue that scientists don't/won't ensure their "research" reaches the proper conclusions to continue the money faucet is BEYOND naive.

[AZGrizFan]

Maybe if stopped telling people to "go fuck themselves" you'd be better received.

meh, it was a response to being called an emotional wreck and belittled simply for the fact that I was younger and misunderstood one number (but even that misunderstanding didn't undermine I argument in the least bit). I was being well received in the first place, and continuously using "facts" to undermine their position wasn't enough apparently.

Look back at how this thread unfolded and you'll notice that lecturing me on the ethics of discourse is nonsensical when I didn't initiate it

Here's a newsflash for you: its your M.O. You've got a boatload of posts/threads that ALL end up at the same basic point: you're telling someone they're stupid because they don't believe/understand/agree with you, and you devolve into namecalling or telling them to fuck off. You are the classic case of a person who thinks if they just talk LOUDER AND OVER SOMEONE THEN THEIR POINT WILL EVENTUALLY GET ACROSS!!!!

[youngterrier]

Yeah that's right, scientists will lose all of their funding if AGW is a scam......even though government funding for science programs will happen regardless of whether or not it is or not.....NASA, NSI, NHI, etc. That looks brilliant on the surface, but when you look past it it makes absolutely no sense. Compare that to the fact that fossil fuels are the most economic source of energy and a lot more people have more to lose by being told that it's bad for the environment.

SCIENTISTS won't lose all their funding. AGW SCIENTISTS might. And while "people" may have a lot more to lose by being told it (fossil fuels) is bad for the environment, just look at the piles of money, YT. It's not rocket science. Some estimates: US Government has spent $79 BILLION on climate research, almost exclusively on scientists aiming to prove AGW theories. The US Gov't spends $10 million per DAY on climate research.

THis image is another example of the flawed argument AGAINST the money argument:


The huge 8,000 pound gorilla in the room this image is missing is: THE U.S. GOVERNMENT.

From the donk government's perspective: Proving AGW >> More environmental regulation >> more government control >> bigger government >> donk wet dream.

From the scientists' perspective: being a pro-AGW alarmist >> big fat government grant checks to continue research.

But for the creators of this image to imply (laughingly, I might add) that the oil and gas companies somehow have deeper pockets than the U.S. government--which literally has a license to print money--is comical. Which is why they have to leave the U.S. government OFF the image and hope its not noticed. And to somehow attempt to argue that scientists don't/won't ensure their "research" reaches the proper conclusions to continue the money faucet is BEYOND naive.

So wait a minute, is your argument that they spent $79 billion a year? because that would be flawed a argument given that it's actually closer to $4 billion (as the science budget is only $54 billion total, and if you do simple math 10 million x365=3,650 million or 3.6 billion), now $79 billion total over an indefinite amount of years? okay I can roll with that, but the comparison of oil subsidies is much much greater per yer (according the right wing libertarian think tank Cato institute) at the tone of $79-150 billion PER YEAR. (though I haven't been able to find that exact study, I found this study, which shows it at least 20 billion a year, which is still significantly larger than the funding AGW gets: http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/oil/fdsub.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

Compare to the science budget, and it's trivial. Even worse for your argument, and climate science research is only about 4/54 or roughly 8% of the science budget, so that's an outright lie on your part.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... or-science" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So tell me, who has a more vested interest in protecting the fossil fuel burning status quo? A group making 80 billion at least per year from the government not to mention their entire business revolves around burning fossil fuels, or a group of people making 4 billion per year. I'll let the reader decide.

You're continuing the trend of this thread of just naming supposedly big or significant numbers but when put in the right perspective, it's all spin and no substance.

[youngterrier]

meh, it was a response to being called an emotional wreck and belittled simply for the fact that I was younger and misunderstood one number (but even that misunderstanding didn't undermine I argument in the least bit). I was being well received in the first place, and continuously using "facts" to undermine their position wasn't enough apparently.

Look back at how this thread unfolded and you'll notice that lecturing me on the ethics of discourse is nonsensical when I didn't initiate it

Here's a newsflash for you: its your M.O. You've got a boatload of posts/threads that ALL end up at the same basic point: you're telling someone they're stupid because they don't believe/understand/agree with you, and you devolve into namecalling or telling them to fuck off. You are the classic case of a person who thinks if they just talk LOUDER AND OVER SOMEONE THEN THEIR POINT WILL EVENTUALLY GET ACROSS!!!!

Probably I act that way because no one actually reads what I posts other than to see where I grow impatient and start namecalling because no one actually does any research into anything before developing an opinion.

Your ignorance and sore feelings isn't an excuse to rage quit and it doesn't help your perspective either way.

The difference between you and me is that I'm using facts and I'm not focusing on your tone, but rather what little facts you bring forward.

[Baldy]

AGW is nothing more than a vague hypothesis, and not even a scientific hypothesis at that.

That's the extent of your argument. Just words, no facts.

I have given you nothing but facts. Here is another one...
In order to have a theory, you have to have experimental data to prove your hypothesis. In order to run experiments, you have to have controls. What are the controls when it comes to climate science?

Don't bother looking up the answer, there are way too many confounding variances to have any controls.

[youngterrier]

That's the extent of your argument. Just words, no facts.

I have given you nothing but facts. Here is another one...
In order to have a theory, you have to have experimental data to prove your hypothesis. In order to run experiments, you have to have controls. What are the controls when it comes to climate science?

Don't bother looking up the answer, there are way too many confounding variances to have any controls.

We've been over this before.....so were you not convinced that the world was spherical or Einstein's general relativity was correct until the 1960s when we sent something in space to observe the planet? Or was the cumulative data and separate data, albeit not one giant experiment sufficient to prove that?

We've seen the effects of the greenhouse effect on other planets such as Venus. We know we are pumping more CO2 in the planet and depleting photosynthesizing agents. We know that there is 41% more CO2 ppm in the atmosphere than there was during/before the industrial revolution. We know that the temperatures are getting higher in the lower atmosphere, but not in the higher atmosphere, so it's not solar activity. These are the facts, only on the top of my head. Put 2+2 together.

Besides, the only facts you've brought forward is a meaningless statistic that shows you miss the point. You haven't debunked or brought forth any counter evidence to the claims I've made about the balance of photosynthesizers and aerobic respirators, and in fact you've proposed a question as to why scientists don't know the number of greenhouse gases to pump into the atmosphere to offset the effects, which such question by itself showcases you have absolutely no idea as to how this process works. So I can't really say you've proposed a relevant argument or counter-argument. I'm still waiting on one.

[AZGrizFan]

So wait a minute, is your argument that they spent $79 billion a year? because that would be flawed a argument given that it's actually closer to $4 billion (as the science budget is only $54 billion total, and if you do simple math 10 million x365=3,650 million or 3.6 billion), now $79 billion total over an indefinite amount of years? okay I can roll with that, but the comparison of oil subsidies is much much greater per yer (according the right wing libertarian think tank Cato institute) at the tone of $79-150 billion PER YEAR. (though I haven't been able to find that exact study, I found this study, which shows it at least 20 billion a year, which is still significantly larger than the funding AGW gets: http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/oil/fdsub.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

Compare to the science budget, and it's trivial. Even worse for your argument, and climate science research is only about 4/54 or roughly 8% of the science budget, so that's an outright lie on your part.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... or-science" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So tell me, who has a more vested interest in protecting the fossil fuel burning status quo? A group making 80 billion at least per year from the government not to mention their entire business revolves around burning fossil fuels, or a group of people making 4 billion per year. I'll let the reader decide.

You're continuing the trend of this thread of just naming supposedly big or significant numbers but when put in the right perspective, it's all spin and no substance.

You did the math. Do you REALLY think I meant $79 billion per year? And if you think all the money spent on AGW and climate change research comes from the SCIENCE budget, then you're beyond hope.

[youngterrier]

So wait a minute, is your argument that they spent $79 billion a year? because that would be flawed a argument given that it's actually closer to $4 billion (as the science budget is only $54 billion total, and if you do simple math 10 million x365=3,650 million or 3.6 billion), now $79 billion total over an indefinite amount of years? okay I can roll with that, but the comparison of oil subsidies is much much greater per yer (according the right wing libertarian think tank Cato institute) at the tone of $79-150 billion PER YEAR. (though I haven't been able to find that exact study, I found this study, which shows it at least 20 billion a year, which is still significantly larger than the funding AGW gets: http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/oil/fdsub.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

Compare to the science budget, and it's trivial. Even worse for your argument, and climate science research is only about 4/54 or roughly 8% of the science budget, so that's an outright lie on your part.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... or-science" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So tell me, who has a more vested interest in protecting the fossil fuel burning status quo? A group making 80 billion at least per year from the government not to mention their entire business revolves around burning fossil fuels, or a group of people making 4 billion per year. I'll let the reader decide.

You're continuing the trend of this thread of just naming supposedly big or significant numbers but when put in the right perspective, it's all spin and no substance.

You did the math. Do you REALLY think I meant $79 billion per year? And if you think all the money spent on AGW and climate change research comes from the SCIENCE budget, then you're beyond hope.

I didn't think so, I was just making sure (reading comprehension much, I never said you did?) and you're going to have to actually give some evidence to that claim, other than a vague statement. Where else in the budget would it/does it come from? But I think it's funny that you're stretching far enough to say that scientists don't want to directly increase the science budget, or that scientists are conspiring to increase their budget by other means other than the science budget. Tell me, especially science has a meaningless powerless lobby, especially compared to fossil fuel interests

environmentalist lobbies having power? I can buy that, but it's a farther stretch to think that environmentalist lobbies are convincing scientists to come up with a fake consensus to not directly increase their budgets. And that is a little too far of a stretch for me, as the scientists wouldn't have much to gain from that.

If AGW is fake, and scientists know it, why would they continue to waste their time getting funding experimenting on something that they know is false? That's a waste of their time, especially if that money is going to AGW research exclusively and not other scientific ventures (in which case, it would go to the science budget....but apparently that's not happening). It makes no sense.

[Gil Dobie]

If AGW is fake, and scientists know it, why would they continue to waste their time getting funding experimenting on something that they know is false? That's a waste of their time, especially if that money is going to AGW research exclusively and not other scientific ventures (in which case, it would go to the science budget....but apparently that's not happening). It makes no sense.

If they keep throwing money at it, they can prove it's true. Plus keep their salary on the books.

[Ibanez]

Seriously, cow farts

[AZGrizFan]

I didn't think so, I was just making sure (reading comprehension much, I never said you did?) and you're going to have to actually give some evidence to that claim, other than a vague statement. Where else in the budget would it/does it come from? But I think it's funny that you're stretching far enough to say that scientists don't want to directly increase the science budget, or that scientists are conspiring to increase their budget by other means other than the science budget. Tell me, especially science has a meaningless powerless lobby, especially compared to fossil fuel interests

environmentalist lobbies having power? I can buy that, but it's a farther stretch to think that environmentalist lobbies are convincing scientists to come up with a fake consensus to not directly increase their budgets. And that is a little too far of a stretch for me, as the scientists wouldn't have much to gain from that.

If AGW is fake, and scientists know it, why would they continue to waste their time getting funding experimenting on something that they know is false? That's a waste of their time, especially if that money is going to AGW research exclusively and not other scientific ventures (in which case, it would go to the science budget....but apparently that's not happening). It makes no sense.

Who said anything about scientists not wanting to increase the science budget? Do you just read what you want to read into something?

[youngterrier]

If AGW is fake, and scientists know it, why would they continue to waste their time getting funding experimenting on something that they know is false? That's a waste of their time, especially if that money is going to AGW research exclusively and not other scientific ventures (in which case, it would go to the science budget....but apparently that's not happening). It makes no sense.

If they keep throwing money at it, they can prove it's true. Plus keep their salary on the books.

But the whole idea that it's a conspiracy is somewhat nonsensical when put under the premises that:

1)AGW funding isn't significantly going into the science budget
2)Scientists are conspiring to get more funding
3)scientists know AGW is false

So why would scientists conspire to get more funding if not for actual science, but rather for science that's a dead end (and they know is a dead end)? If anything, this "conspiracy" proves that climate science is worth investing in research in, because if there wasn't consensus, scientists would rather have us invest in other science that has some sort of "return," if you will, other than fortifying what we already know as a dead end. Pursuing a dead end is a waste of time

[youngterrier]

I didn't think so, I was just making sure (reading comprehension much, I never said you did?) and you're going to have to actually give some evidence to that claim, other than a vague statement. Where else in the budget would it/does it come from? But I think it's funny that you're stretching far enough to say that scientists don't want to directly increase the science budget, or that scientists are conspiring to increase their budget by other means other than the science budget. Tell me, especially science has a meaningless powerless lobby, especially compared to fossil fuel interests

environmentalist lobbies having power? I can buy that, but it's a farther stretch to think that environmentalist lobbies are convincing scientists to come up with a fake consensus to not directly increase their budgets. And that is a little too far of a stretch for me, as the scientists wouldn't have much to gain from that.

If AGW is fake, and scientists know it, why would they continue to waste their time getting funding experimenting on something that they know is false? That's a waste of their time, especially if that money is going to AGW research exclusively and not other scientific ventures (in which case, it would go to the science budget....but apparently that's not happening). It makes no sense.

Who said anything about scientists not wanting to increase the science budget? Do you just read what you want to read into something?

If its not in the science budget, and rather for direct research, what's the gain for scientists if they know AGW is false? If you were going to find a way to weasel money out of government for productive purposes, you wouldn't do it on a dead end. Then logically you're assuming that scientists just want to waste time and do nothing....and I can understand thinking that of a few scientists, but enough scientists to lobby the budget? come on now.

I didn't selectively read your post, you said the funding for AGW research wasn't in the science budget, and I asked the question of where is it coming from then? Please tell me. What's their motivation for a research grant or otherwise to a dead end when that money can only be used for that specific research purpose?

I love how you take one point out of many in my entire post and make of it but never actually engage the substance.

You're losing AZ

[Gil Dobie]

But the whole idea that it's a conspiracy is somewhat nonsensical when put under the premises that:

1)AGW funding isn't significantly going into the science budget
2)Scientists are conspiring to get more funding
3)scientists know AGW is false

So why would scientists conspire to get more funding if not for actual science, but rather for science that's a dead end (and they know is a dead end)? If anything, this "conspiracy" proves that climate science is worth investing in research in, because if there wasn't consensus, scientists would rather have us invest in other science that has some sort of "return," if you will, other than fortifying what we already know as a dead end. Pursuing a dead end is a waste of time

They need to keep throwing money at it until they can prove it's not a dead end and a waste of time.

[youngterrier]

But the whole idea that it's a conspiracy is somewhat nonsensical when put under the premises that:

1)AGW funding isn't significantly going into the science budget
2)Scientists are conspiring to get more funding
3)scientists know AGW is false

So why would scientists conspire to get more funding if not for actual science, but rather for science that's a dead end (and they know is a dead end)? If anything, this "conspiracy" proves that climate science is worth investing in research in, because if there wasn't consensus, scientists would rather have us invest in other science that has some sort of "return," if you will, other than fortifying what we already know as a dead end. Pursuing a dead end is a waste of time

They need to keep throwing money at it until they can prove it's not a dead end and a waste of time.

But if there wasn't a consensus among scientists, you'd think more scientists would be speaking up in order to get funding to what they actually believed be worth-while projects as opposed to that? Government funding is somewhat competitive. The different sciences want as much funding as they can for themselves, so they're going to call out a pipe-dream. That made be harder to do across different fields of science, but in the case of climate scientists the same rules apply. Each on the field have different ambitions, and if they felt that there was a pipe dream in AGW research and that money could be best spent elsewhere, they wouldn't be silent about it because it better serves their interest to get as much funding as possible, and that includes undermines funding for others. And yet there is still silence. It's one thing if there was a solidarity thing and all scientists just stood together to increase the science budget under any circumstances, but according to AZ, that's not how they are weaseling money out of system, in which case you would expect a little more controversy. And there isn't.

That's why I'm skeptical of this whole "it's a conspiracy among scientists" notion. It assumes that scientists are under one voice (which isn't the case) or all climate scientists are under one voice. They are on this issue, because if they weren't and funding was the motive, those who disagreed would be vocal enough to siphon of funding elsewhere, but apparently there isn't enough disagreement because we don't see it.

[Gil Dobie]

But if there wasn't a consensus among scientists, you'd think more scientists would be speaking up in order to get funding to what they actually believed be worth-while projects as opposed to that? Government funding is somewhat competitive. The different sciences want as much funding as they can for themselves, so they're going to call out a pipe-dream. That made be harder to do across different fields of science, but in the case of climate scientists the same rules apply. Each on the field have different ambitions, and if they felt that there was a pipe dream in AGW research and that money could be best spent elsewhere, they wouldn't be silent about it because it better serves their interest to get as much funding as possible, and that includes undermines funding for others. And yet there is still silence. It's one thing if there was a solidarity thing and all scientists just stood together to increase the science budget under any circumstances, but according to AZ, that's not how they are weaseling money out of system, in which case you would expect a little more controversy. And there isn't.

That's why I'm skeptical of this whole "it's a conspiracy among scientists" notion. It assumes that scientists are under one voice (which isn't the case) or all climate scientists are under one voice. They are on this issue, because if they weren't and funding was the motive, those who disagreed would be vocal enough to siphon of funding elsewhere, but apparently there isn't enough disagreement because we don't see it.

They should be spending the money on something the will create clean fuel, like Nuclear Energy and ways to re-use or safely displose of the waste. An electric automobile world needs power plants for electricity.