KW
Well-Known Member
Climate change is political. That's why the "scientists" work for government agencies and receive government funding. No crisis, no funding.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Actual Weather Station Data from Rural Weather Stations
- Thread starter KW
- Start date
Climate change is political. That's why the "scientists" work for government agencies and receive government funding. No crisis, no funding.
KW
Well-Known Member
That's editorializing. There are other cases of fraud as well.
I don't care about this particular author's opinion.
More about data manipulation:
Cooking Up Temperatures: Climate Scientists Resort to Data Manipulation | Earth Rising - An Alternative Environmental Commentary (earthrisingblog.com)
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
KW
Well-Known Member
More data manipulation:
U.S. Agencies Accused of Fudging Data to Show Global Warming - The New American
KW
Well-Known Member
No, it isn't. You're just trying very, very hard to make it political.
Now we're putting scientists in quotations?
Climate scientists are often very political.
U.S. Agencies Accused of Fudging Data to Show Global Warming - The New American
KW
Well-Known Member
You are making my case for me. More political propaganda.
You left out starving children, shrinking economies, higher rates of disease, and the increase in global poverty that will result from refusing to use the most efficient energy sources.
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
KW
Well-Known Member
You don't care about facts, apparently. You are influenced by your politics.
U.S. Agencies Accused of Fudging Data to Show Global Warming - The New American
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
exchemist
Veteran Member
This list is exactly what I predicted. A meagre handful of names, mostly not qualified in the relevant field, who have retired - and have not been fired at all.
The only one on this list that was fired from an academic post was Nicholas Drapela, a prof of chemistry at Oregon who seems to have annoyed the faculty by persistently going off-piste and pontificating in a field in which he had little expertise.
Of the rest:-
- Will Happer, a physicist, was allegedly dismissed from some government post by Al Gore back in 1993, but remains a prof at Princeton.
- the 49 NASA "scientists" is an old chestnut from the climate change denial playbook that I've come across before. From memory, they comprise a bunch of retired engineers and astronauts. Not climate scientists.
- Leslie Woodcock is a chemical engineer, so knows jack all about climate change. He remains an emeritus prof at Manchester. (Emeritus is a title normally given to people who have retired from active research as a mark of respect. It is not given to people who have been fired.)
- Richard Lindzen retired, back in 2013.
So this is your list of the people whose appalling fate has terrified the other tens of thousands of climatologists into meek compliance with the climate change dogma, then? A princely ONE case of a sacking, and that for a chemist going off-piste.
Keep em coming.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
exchemist
Veteran Member
Not only that, but what is interesting - if not exactly surprising - is that he is relying on old data and old arguments.
There's almost nothing that is current, here: it's all about old figures peddled by long-dead people, or opinions from people who have long since retired, most of whom know little or nothing about the climate data and models that have become available over the last decade.
These hackneyed old talking points have the same zombie quality of the arguments we sometimes still see in favour of "intelligent design".
It's basically over: the ship has sailed, but some of these people still don't get it.
You have my respect for your fact-checking, yes you do!This list is exactly what I predicted. A meagre handful of names, mostly not qualified in the relevant field, who have retired - and have not been fired at all.
The only one on this list that was fired from an academic post was Nicholas Drapela, a prof of chemistry at Oregon who seems to have annoyed the faculty by persistently going off-piste and pontificating in a field in which he had little expertise.
Of the rest:-
- Will Happer, a physicist, was allegedly dismissed from some government post by Al Gore back in 1993, but remains a prof at Princeton.
- the 49 NASA "scientists" is an old chestnut from the climate change denial playbook that I've come across before. From memory, they comprise a bunch of retired engineers and astronauts. Not climate scientists.
- Leslie Woodcock is a chemical engineer, so knows jack all about climate change. He remains an emeritus prof at Manchester. (Emeritus is a title normally given to people who have retired from active research as a mark of respect. It is not given to people who have been fired.)
- Richard Lindzen retired, back in 2013.
So this is your list of the people whose appalling fate has terrified the other tens of thousands of climatologists into meek compliance with the climate change dogma, then? A princely ONE case of a sacking, and that for a chemist going off-piste.
Keep em coming.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
I noticed the same thing. I remember arguing against this exact same stuff years ago.
I'm loving your posts, by the way.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Haha, I'm getting used to a little flurry of "likes" when you are on line. It's very nice to have the support. We're obviously wired up the same way.
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
Bloody scientists with those fact things.