Comments on: How Sure Are Scientists About Global Warming? – Henry Pollack

By: dlucas90

dlucas90 — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:51:22 +0000

Do you understand …
Do you understand how money is created in the first place? It’s not surprising if you don’t, its not taught in school. Check out how our govt. colludes with international banks to create money and you will soon understand both politics and the economy in a way you never may have thought before. The best starting point I’ve found is a Canadian educational film entitled “money as debt”.
You will see how this relates to environmental science, as well as the credibility of “govt. experts”.

By: dlucas90

dlucas90 — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:51:21 +0000

If the govt. can …
If the govt. can find and fund like minded scientists, then it is relevant that govt.s can “find scientists”. They can even give them phony awards in the same way obama was awarded the piece prize for accelerating bush’s BS wars.

By: TheFallibleFiend

TheFallibleFiend — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:51:21 +0000

How money gets …
How money gets created is a red herring.
Not all of the experts are government experts. However, most of the data gathering takes government level expenditure. Are you saying that we should just throw out all the data? Are all the climate scientists in cahoots? We can’t trust anything they say?

By: bradwatson7324

bradwatson7324 — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:51:20 +0000

One could trust …
One could trust scientific climate change results more if the funding for its research came solely from private donations.

By: RationalRat

RationalRat — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:51:19 +0000

No, it wouldn’t …
No, it wouldn’t matter. One could always make the accusation of “bias”. What if the funding came from Exxon? Or Greenpeace? Or a company that has close ties to Exxon or Greenpeace? The fact is that there isn’t really any evidence of systematic bias, and the best anyone can do is to construct a hypothetical motive for why governments would want to support global warming theory. When you run out of facts and evidence, a blanket accusation of bias is all you’ve got left.

By: dlucas90

dlucas90 — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:51:19 +0000

I’ll assume that …
I’ll assume that means you don’t know how money is created and don’t care.
Q; whats ignorant mean?
A; I don’t know and I don’t care.
I though you guys thought that only big business makes policies based on money. Big business and govt. are one in the same.
I didn’t say that all scientist are in cahoots, I said the ones the govt. want to hear from and make policies around are selected. Isn’t it interesting that there are no public debates being conducted when this issue affects us all?

By: dlucas90

dlucas90 — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:51:18 +0000

If you know how …
If you know how money is created than you are aware that our govt. is engaged in fraud, unconstitutional, yet made legal. You really trust anything either party says when they actively, and intentionally deceive the public?
Would you take a Doctor’s advice if the Doctor is a known con-artist?

By: TheFallibleFiend

TheFallibleFiend — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:51:18 +0000

I didn’t say that I …
I didn’t say that I don’t know and I don’t care. Nor could that be reasonably inferred from what I did say. I said “how money gets created” is a red herring.

Science isn’t settled by debate. As for policy issues, they are “debated” every day in the popular press.

By: TheFallibleFiend

TheFallibleFiend — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:51:17 +0000

Once again, how …
Once again, how money gets created is a red herring. Do you also reject everything published by the CDC?

This is not about “parties.” It’s about the science. Not all of the science is done by government scientists. Can you point to any specific government scientists who are involved in manufacturing the data? Is it all of NOAA or just the top administrators, e.g.?

By: RationalRat

RationalRat — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:51:16 +0000

It isn’t relevant …
It isn’t relevant what the government could theoretically do. The point is that you have shown no evidence to show that science is biased in favor of global warming because of government funding.