It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Maxmars
a reply to: mc_squared
You, my esteemed friend, have cut to the chase. I meant no offense in my choice of speech.
originally posted by: Metallicus
It really doesn't matter if GW is real or not. We don't have any affordable, viable alternatives to our current fossil fuel based energy grid. Until we do the point is moot unless we are willing to return to the stone age which the majority of the people are not. This is the social and economic reality no matter how many studies are pumped out by climate change scientists.
originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
It should also be noted that Dr. Soon was a frequent Fox "News" contributor in their non-stop propaganda wave in support of the fossil fuel industry.
originally posted by: TsukiLunar
It really is a mental illness at play here. It's like they don't how science works and they want to be afraid!
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
The other side of the argument is that these government sources are pushing AGW theory as fact because it open the door for them to pass more legislation, claim more control over the people, and extort more taxes from their constituents while universities and the like ride along due to the nature of public university funding being largely at the whim of their political leadership.
Not exactly sure what further evidence is needed, really. You clearly have a circle jerk of policy makers being in charge of money sources towards the folks developing the data they use to publicly make their policies. It is absolutely apparent that there is a direct cost and power benefit to the scientists and governments to ensure AGW is not questioned.
originally posted by: jefwane
One sponsor i would be looking for closely on the goal warming team aside from academia and government is from banks and wall street. Those guys are chomping at the bit to get to trading carbon credits so that they can skim even more from those that produce something.
I personally am not that concerned about climate change mainly because i don't trust either side.
I am concerned about other ecological issues like deforestation, over fishing, clean water, and ocean pollution.
originally posted by: Maxmars
I am often amused by the relative success the media routinely achieves obfuscating the issue of the matter; while effectively negating the legitimacy of any input. (It seems oddly parallel to the old conspiracy theorist meme... "show me evidence" and then "I don't accept that evidence!")
The network structure of the Academic Industrial Complex is such that there are in fact NO objective approaches to any research that is "funded" via a systematic entity who exists solely to make revenue flow through 'institutions."
Even the "squeaky clean" institutional research efforts cannot escape the fact that the revenue flow they facilitate is already tainted by the political posture of various committee members, the level of "commercial" interest in the outcome, and the treacherously undefinable manipulation of public imagery foisted upon us via press releases, and editorialized reporting.
Of course, I am struck suspicious when they idea that the researcher "hid" the connections comes to mind. If there was a deliberate "hiding" happening - then yes - it deserves the scrutiny of balanced inquiry....
... unfortunately, the only people who are allowed to "SAY" they conduct balanced inquiry and report findings are the make believe "press" ... who are neither balanced, nor capable of inquiry at all... mostly now the generalization is true that they simply collate press releases and editorialize social mine-able data to "create" hyped and dramatized articles that foment highly-charged arguments about the irrelevant peripheral matters that don't speak to the so-called subject of the research.
If we are to directly accuse someone of manipulating the facts, in order to forge a truth that is 'expedient' to their 'belief;' recognize that such a belief is not based in fact.
By associating known 'interested' influential institutions with the researcher we are doing no less than applying the old "guilt by association" which more often than not leads us not towards the facts, but away from them, towards a more marketable 'truth.'
The connection between Soon and the "energy" industry funding, is merely a circumstantial connection
- the kind political pundits "love" to abuse for our entertainment. It does not - in fact - automatically mean the industry successfully "influenced" the researcher(s). Also, the idea that the principle "researcher" has adopted a position means little... why? Because the position is based upon "'research."
Research - despite the ostensible position that it is the 'god' gift of organized science to humanity - is NOT a guarantee that it is CORRECT nor that it is CORRECTLY interpreted.
What "outrage" is being cultivated by the NYT article is just as potentially skewed and over-dramatized as the idea that researcher's must live in a professional bubble or their every pronouncement is poisoned fruit.
originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: mc_squared
The wagons have started circling. Curry, Spencer, Pielke are blogging about it, Watts is in a tizzy... they're all calling it a witch hunt for the skeptical 7 (LOL).
originally posted by: mc_squared
I love how they’re all rallying around Pielke too because “he’s not even a skeptic”. It’s like those racists who deny their racism because they “have a friend who’s black”.
originally posted by: Deharg
Distorting and cherry picking mc mate......
And you had the bare faced cheek to use the complete BS 97% garbage.....OMG dissonance indeed...cook and lewandowsky has been so completely taken apart, not least by the folks who wrote some of the papers which were evaluated to come up with that ridiculous statistic in the first place.
Listen to history and a very great man. A certain Mr Einstein and argue with him.. Consensus has no place in science if I were wrong it would take only one.. Response to 100 German scientist against his Jewish science...