Originally posted by Blue You are so full of shit on this one you should be charged a sewer bill. You keep on with the denier crap as if it is a religion and unfortunately, to many it is. You also act like the audience of the "believers" are "in the Know" on science. As far as grant funding goes, 80% of it comes from public sources and that is being conservative. It may be closer to 90%. NSF, NRI etc etc are public sources.
Ok. So I'm 'so full of shit' for saying what the 'denier crap' according to you, 'unfortunately is, for many?'
Does that mean we're both full of shit?
Yes, many believe that anything 'environmental' is against their religion, for failing to 'subdue and overpopulate the Earth' ...even believing that it is somehow thwarting their God's will' of private enterprise making billions while accelerating Jesus coming back to end the world. (You know, sounds more like some James Bond villain's scheme than what Christianity's supposed to be, that.)
People will believe any thin and 'sciencey' excuse to be in denial under those circumstances.. Just like the corporations say 'It'll cost jobs if we have to be 'greener,' ...Then they outsource the jobs *anyway* and say, 'Blame the liberals for all that regulation that didn't happen.'
Quote: The devil is in the details on climate change.
I don't think it's about 'devils.' *Details* out of context can be sophomorically-construed to undercut the idea of 'Global warming,' but even if you dress it up in a study, it's still basically just saying, 'It's cold today. Global warming must be a scam.'
Well. Maybe it's cold today cause the extra *heat* is *driving the cold air down from where it'd previously been keeping the ice caps cold and keeping our weather patterns fairly regular.*
Assorted factoids in isolation do not a 'big picture' make. They just don't.
Quote: The "global warming" was a fear game to get a panic reaction among the general population. Originally it was for increased grant funding. Somewhere along the line a bunch of politicians wanted in on the racket. I assure you that there are many scientists that acknowledge climate change by understand that there are many forces driving it.
None of the 'alternative theories' actually make any kind of case it's a grand idea to continue burning what's left of our easily-accessible fossil fuels with abandon.
If the Sun *were* getting brighter right now... (No one's ever shown a measurement on this theory that I have seen) That would make it *twice* as urgent to reduce greenhouse gas levels, not *less.*
In that scenario, who *cares* whose 'fault' it is? What, 'It's not our fault, let's make ourselves twice as screwed?
Now here's a theory of 'Evil science grad students are making it all up for the grants, despite the fact that the private sector *pays better!*'
This is just more of people doing the Roveian thing of 'Accuse your opponents of what you've already been caught brazenly doing, yourself.'