Posted on 12/30/2016 9:38:23 AM PST by shove_it
In the world of climate science, the skeptics are coming in from the cold.
Researchers who see global warming as something less than a planet-ending calamity believe the incoming Trump administration may allow their views to be developed and heard. This didn’t happen under the Obama administration, which denied that a debate even existed. Now, some scientists say, a more inclusive approach – and the billions of federal dollars that might support it – could be in the offing.
~snip~
The field is cluttered with entrenched figures who must toe the established line, he said, pointing to a recent congressional report that found the Obama administration got a top Department of Energy scientist fired and generally intimidated the staff to conform with its politicized position on climate change.
“Remember this was a tiny field, a backwater, and then suddenly you increased the funding to billions and everyone got into it,” Lindzen said. “Even in 1990 no one at MIT called themselves a ‘climate scientist,’ and then all of a sudden everyone was. They only entered it because of the bucks; they realized it was a gravy train. You have to get it back to the people who only care about the science.”
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearinvestigations.com ...
They had some nice songs.
Magnificent, knarf, thank you very much!
There is so much wisdom in that song.
—
Now don’t hang on
Nothing lasts forever but the Earth and sky
It slips away
And all your money won’t another minute buy
—
No one writes lyrics like that anymore.
Poetry.
Happy New Year, knarf!
So much experimentation that actually worked came out of the box.
Definitely. Real musicians played real instruments back in the day.
Yes, Ike sure saw it coming and warned us.
Cheers and Happy New Year!
Otter
Yes. It amazes me what so many today are willing to accept.
You may be confusing % of the Atmosphere vs. % of Greenhouse gases.
4% is CO2’s % of greenhouse gases.
Where is that? Cars are on wrong side of the road?
That is the Japan tsunami.
I like to look at the Japanese tsunami event as a perfect example of just how powerless man is versus the elements of this world.
The Japanese people are very environmentally conscious. They are green, no doubt.
But no matter what measures they may take to save the planet from whatever, when the planet decides to demonstrate to them that they are, in fact, nothing more than dust, all they can do is run.
The exact moment that the elemental forces of this world decide that life will no longer be here, life will no longer be here.
Air, Earth, Fire, Water > All.
The term “Climate Scientist” is a misnomer. Science is about repeatability i.e. A+B=C, every time it is applied or observed. Earth is a dynamic planet, it is constantly changing and it’s climate is determined by the sun primarily. The sun is cyclic with fluctuations that reflect upon earth’s weather. The best you can say about climatologists is that they are merely observers and quantifiers. It is the height of folly to think man can have lasting effects upon earth’s weather.
Nope. They'll just move on to their next hysterics; be it global warming, lack of places to put trash, overpopulation, global cooling, lack of food, genetically modified food, etc, etc, etc.
All have the same solutions: Cut back personal consumption, have fewer kids, live in smaller houses and drive smaller cars. For 50 years they've been pushing the same agenda - with the same people involved pushing it.
You forgot the main one — statements of which necessarily include the magic word: "funding".
The problem with the AGW “theory” is that it is not a theory, in the scientific sense, at all.
If you think it is, please try to cite a null hypothesis to be tested without looking ridiculous.
For example, a valid null hypothesis would be: “Without human activity at a post-industrial level, climate would be invariant”. Of course, THAT null hypothesis would be invalidated by ice ages, droughts, historical periods of desertification, high latitude vegetation in the Cretaceous, etc, etc.
But if that’s not the AGW null hypothesis, what exactly is it?
>>The problem with the AGW “theory” is that it is not a theory, in the scientific sense, at all.<<
I assume you are emphasizing my point. That is why I capitalized Scientific Theory when noting AGW meets no criteria thereof.
Mat 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
...and may not be negative effects.
Remember when Nature had nature articles ,Scientific American had scientific articles, and the UFO channels had UFO articles ?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.